Do Africans have a genetic disadvantage?

Question

This is not a racist attempt to discredit Africans as it may appear. Read:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5127a1.htm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/48/18178

~37,000 yrs ago a gene (determined to be ~1.1 million yrs old) suddenly appeared in homosapiens, a species ~ 200 K yrs old, in the Mid East. This gene spread to 70% of the World's population, but not to sub Saharan Africa... probably because the migration paths were to Asia & Europe. Due to the very high positive selection of this gene, one must suspect it confered a large advantage to those born with this gene. Some, such as I, suspect it reduced the mother/infant mortality rate. Yet another gene (CPHM) was discovered by the same research team (led by Bruce Lahn, U of Chicago) & 85% of Europeans have this gene that also appeared in the Mid East some 5,800 yrs ago.

British data on African mothers indicate African women (giving birth the 1st time) are 40% more likely to undergo C sections.

Answer 1

I was talking to some teachers, because I had heard in California, they were giving black students a different test then the whites. I said if three different colored students read the same book why could they not answer the same questions? Their answer was the black culture reads the words differently. I ask you when did we get different cultures in the U.S. I thought we were the melting pot, the blending of the races.

Answer 2

You have a introgressed gene, possible from Neanderthals and you have birth data. You do not even cross correlate your data, let alone show causation and you call people stupid. If Africans have a genetic disadvantage you have not shown it.

Your presentation is about par for a social science.

Answer 3

1. Comment on the accuracy of dating the emergence of a particular gene variant.

2. You give an example of a mutation that apparently had a lot of success in non-Africans, and then give an example of one disadvantage that African women may have. You do not provide any sort of evidence whatsoever to link the two. All you can say is that these two facts (if they are true) happen to exist at the same time, not that they have anything to do with each other.

3. Only a person totally ignorant of archaeology would think that only a trickle of people from the ME migrated back into Africa.

EDIT: Funny, all the biological anthropologists I know tend to incorporate data gathered by us "bone diggers." Especially, since it's also scientific data, and gives a more complete picture. If you're only looking at genetics, and not taking other evidence into account (or dismiss it as rudely as you have), you didn't do your job as an anthropologist. Simple as that. I don't know where you get the idea that archaeology isn't a means of scientific inquiry.

Answer 4

1.  The article from PNAS only argues for the possibility of sexual interaction between neandertal (or other archaic hominids) and modern homo sapiens by pointing out the coalescence age of the microcephalin D haplogroup.  That's it.  

2.  The article from the CDC summarizes infant mortalities between two races.  That's it.

The two articles you cited have little to do with each other and I doubt these two articles are fit to serve your "hypothesis".

Answer 5

In strictly scientific terms no.  In the field of natural selection the black race has been around far longer than the white race and therefore should hold an advantage.  I believe what you are referring to are disadvantages that occur with the social issues of poverty, lack of sufficient education, political instability and lack of robust economies.  

Anyone born into such a situation would be "viewed" as disadvantaged, but it does not come from ones genetic code.

Answer 6

Yeah, what Bravozulu said.

Answer 7

Well Ed, I went through all your old expired questions and it seems that you have had a distinct fascination regarding this gene for some time.  I can also now understand the lack of links in support of the connection between the gene and infant mortality because I noticed that one of your responders to a previous question concerning this gene seemed to give you this idea that it could have originated from the success it might provided to the birthing process.  I think that it is a genuinely good hypothesis and I'm sorry to see all the ignorant responses that you have received in its pursuit.  Of course the way you worded the question this time was rather inflammatory despite your disclaimer.  Upon reading your previous questions in concert with seeing this gene's range of introduction (one of your other links said 12,000 - 60,000 I think?), this further supports the scenario that your friend Patrick proposed.  It seems that in regard to both of these genes Lahn seems to like to pick the center point of his range much of the time instead of actually stating the range.  This is a rather flawed approach unless he was to also provide a standard deviation in order to allow others to understand the probability of that center point being the correct time of introduction.  Of course this point is not important in terms of why the gene experienced such a positive selection, as you are looking for, but does shed further doubt on Neanderthal being the originator of providing the gene to Homo sapiens.  having this 48,000 year range of introduction straddles the complete period of European co-habitation between Homo sapiens with Neanderthal plus it covers a distinct amount of time before they co-habituated (in Europe) and after Neanderthal went extinct.  It seems that when a Neanderthal origin is sought they stick with the middle point, where as when the gene is spoken about more generally they offer the range, which is rather leading in how it wants people to interpret the data.  The article that you have linked to this question is consistent as it is semi supportive of Neanderthal interbreeding and proposes 37,000 year ago origin.  Of interest to me was that in some of your earlier articles that you had linked Lahn proposed that this gene may have had influences on intelligence, where as this latest article proposes "The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) regulates brain size during development" which would be more in line with Patrick's hypothesis once again.  I think that your friend Patrick is definitely onto something here.  Have you heard anything from Patrick concerning the follow through that he said he was going to conduct by writing Lahn?

Anyways, I don't have any more data/links to provide for you beyond the ones that you and Patrick already came up with.  I think that the next stage in the pursuit of this hypothesis is out of the realm of the answers community and this idea now has to head upstream to spawn in the minds of genetic scientists, if not Lahn then one of the many other extremely well qualified scientists that could do this type of genetic research on different ethnicity birth mothers and their babies directly.  It is no longer a time to conjecture on answers when the hypothesis has strong support from the available data and a clear methodology of how it can be tested genetically.  I recommend that you contact your friend Patrick and see if his follow through has revealed any results and if he has not taken it up let me know and one of us can follow it up ourselves.  I would be keen on seeing this hypothesis followed through to the next level.  As of such I will not search the internet for links that might support this hypothesis which you and Patrick have already thought through, but with your's and Patrick's permission I would be happy to write some letters to the scientists who might be able to determine the answers which you seek at a more conclusive level then what you will ever receive here.

Answer 8

It depends on what you consider an advantage or disadvantage....

Answer 9

The statement "probably because the migration paths were to Asia and Europe" is irrational.  It comes from the simplistic "Out of Africa" mentality that says migration occurs in only one direction.  

It is like the people who believe that have no concept of time.  There was likely a "migration" out of Africa but it wasn't a one way street.  The population obviously spread out and occupied the entire region.  The gene flow would have been back to Africa, though probably at a lower rate, since the original population was larger.  It is virtually inconceivable that in tens of thousands of years, no one walked south.

There are likely other influences, like disease resistance or something else particular to Africa that cause the difference in gene flow.  It is also possible that having a low birth weight baby, if there are certain problems, is an evolutionary advantage as it doesn't waste the resources of the mother.

<edit to add> African isn't a race.  Our "race" is as old as any other.  We just had a few genes that changed our skin color.

<edit to clarify>The reason I that the migration path is irrelevant in my opinion is that the gene would have surely made it in to Africa over that amount of time and should have spread if there was such an inherent advantage.

Answer 10

yeah. the can't stop having bigger and bigger dickx after 20 more generations, they won't be able to reproduce.