385
edits
no edit summary
Marie EBEL (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Marie EBEL (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
I got invited multiple times to various meetings with other scientists, all fascinated with the subject of ethnicity. It is indeed a quite controversial topic, as the scientific community still disagree on certain points, but all recognize that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories, which challenges the traditional concept of biologically separate and distinct races. Nevertheless, it seems that analyzing diverse genome markers is likely to define a population group, to a certain extent. | I got invited multiple times to various meetings with other scientists, all fascinated with the subject of ethnicity. It is indeed a quite controversial topic, as the scientific community still disagree on certain points, but all recognize that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories, which challenges the traditional concept of biologically separate and distinct races. Nevertheless, it seems that analyzing diverse genome markers is likely to define a population group, to a certain extent. | ||
Based on this new pattern, I decided to change my angle. I attacked the problem the other way around. I found a scientific paper that refers to a primer that defines subhaplogroups. This paper completes the DNA sequencing that covers virtually all (sub)haplogroups discernible to date in East Asia. It can serve as a solid basis for phylogeographic (also deduced from the complete human genome) to define whether this primer would run samples of my own DNA. If that is the case, it could mean that I do carry some makers usually associate to East Asian genome, but it could also lead to a quite unusual conclusion: Genetics is manipulable. | |||