An interesting point of view.
I have few remarks here to make.
First, if I got it correct, the guy thinks that there is not such thing as common gene causing a disease and that if you want to work genetically on certain problem you have to make a personal genome-reading for everyone. And that a problem is caused rarely by just one defect gene but more often by multiple factors. That's not so weird to believe and it makes sense. We all represent different genetic heritage, live in not so similar conditions but we get the same health problems. That means that either those problems are in the common parts of the genome or that they represent a common weakness in our body.
I also doubt that the evolution didn't eliminate certain diseases just for the fun of it (my interpretation of "because it was after the reproductive years") . If you ask me, diseases are not so much genetic predispositions (except for the purely genetic ones) as much as results of our failure to live the "right" life. Which doesn't mean "healthy", it means that there is an optimal life for which we evolved-we're drastically changing it in the past 1500 years, so it's normal to see evolution in action-our bodies won't work perfectly but with time they will perfect. But in order to do that, they must have the "mark" of the problem and you can interpretate that mark either as causing the illness or as remembering it. I personally start realising that the human genome is not only a matrix for growing a body, but also is a memory card for all that happened to that form of the body. If you think about it, we get more from our parents than merely the eyes or the hair. We take their illnesses, their characters, sometimes even their food preferences. While people can always argue on this, I have reasons to believe it's true. And if it's true, then there is only one way to get to that-the DNA. Then the DNA has stored all our choices and our morals that mattered for the physical survival. And we have it in us. I have no idea how it can be used, it's just fun to know it.
Another remark is on the Jews history. While I'm getting more and more sick of the Semitic hysteria (like how people tend to think Greece was the origin of Western civilization and Semits, mostly Jews-although arabs also fall in that place- were the origin of mankind. That's absolutely not truth! The history already knows about the Great civilisation of India-about the same time as Sumer in Mesopotamia, about the Egypt that has nothing to do with semits and dates weirdly, about Bulgarian and Thracian history that has NOTHING to do with semits and is much closer to Persia and in the case of the Thracian gold treasure pre-dates Sumer). It's just so one-pointed. Somebody should know about the other directions of history, about the other lessons we learnt in our past. Anyway, my point was that he dated a Jews specific marker to 3000 years ago. And that is sooooooo soon. Anybody pays attention?
Btw, I may have to clarify-the reason why I mention the other civilisations is not to say semit one didn't matter. But we see only the very specific Jew's mythology while there is more to mythology than that. And while Egypt seemed to share their mythology, if you look at the ancient Bulgarian religion-like tangrism or in Dao/Tao or even shamanism-you see another religion that is clear of all the mythologies. Why? I think we simply had different deities, which brings us back on the question of nephilims and was they common for Earth or did they chose specific tribes, how many tribes of aliens there was and so on. And this is important to know.
A Dissenting Voice as the Genome Is Sifted to Fight Disease
The principal rationale for the $3 billion spent to decode the human genome was that it would enable the discovery of the variant genes that predispose people to common diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s. A major expectation was that these variants had not been eliminated by natural selection because they harm people only later in life after their reproductive years are over, and hence that they would be common.
This idea, called the common disease/common variant hypothesis, drove major developments in biology over the last five years. Washington financed the HapMap, a catalog of common genetic variation in the human population. Companies like Affymetrix and Illumina developed powerful gene chips for scanning the human genome.
But David B. Goldstein of Duke University, a leading young population geneticist known partly for his research into the genetic roots of Jewish ancestry, says the effort to nail down the genetics of most common diseases is not working.
In his view, this prodigious labor has produced just a handful of genes that account for very little of the overall genetic risk.
“After doing comprehensive studies for common diseases, we can explain only a few percent of the genetic component of most of these traits,” he said. “For schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, we get almost nothing; for Type 2 diabetes, 20 variants, but they explain only 2 to 3 percent of familial clustering, and so on.”
The reason for this disappointing outcome, in his view, is that natural selection has been far more efficient than many researchers expected at screening out disease-causing variants. The common disease/common variant idea is largely wrong. What has happened is that a multitude of rare variants lie at the root of most common diseases, being rigorously pruned away as soon as any starts to become widespread.
It takes large, expensive trials with hundreds of patients in different countries to find even common variants behind a disease. Rare variants lie beyond present reach. “It’s an astounding thing,” Dr. Goldstein said, “that we have cracked open the human genome and can look at the entire complement of common genetic variants, and what do we find? Almost nothing. That is absolutely beyond belief.”
Researchers hunting for disease genes strongly disagree. They say genomewide association studies with larger numbers of patients will bring more disease-promoting variants to light.
Dr. Kari Stefansson, chief executive of the Icelandic gene-hunting company Decode Genetics, says it does not matter whether disease-causing variants are common or rare as long as they yield insights into the biochemical pathways by which disease develops, and which will provide targets for drugs.
The HapMap project was started amid much skepticism but has proved a technical success, even if it has brought to light fewer common disease variants than hoped.
Dr. Goldstein does not shy away from unpopular positions or research. In a new book, “Jacob’s Legacy” (Yale University Press), he recounts how he delved into the genetic history of Jews.
Given the abuses of the past, geneticists approach with caution research in the genetics of racial or ethnic groups. But genetics can provide powerful insights into history. Because some Jewish communities, for instance, have for centuries married only within their religion, they have developed certain distinctive genetic profiles. One is a genetic signature on the Y chromosome of the hereditary Jewish priests known as cohens. Dr. Goldstein, as he describes in his book, found a set of DNA variations in the signature that allowed him to estimate when that signature first appeared — about 3,000 years ago. The date fit nicely with the presumed date of King Solomon’s reign and supported the claim that cohens were indeed descended from a high priest of around that time, even if that priest may not have been Aaron, as tradition holds.
He gleaned an even deeper insight into Jewish origins from analysis of mitochondrial DNA taken from Jewish communities around the world. In 2000, a team led by Dr. Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona found that men from Jewish communities all carry a certain lineage of Y chromosomes, one that is shared by many Near Eastern peoples.
Two years later, a team led by Dr. Goldstein found out that the mitochondrial DNA of many Jewish communities looks as if it was derived, a long time ago, from the population of the host community. Jewish communities may therefore have been founded by Jewish men, arriving perhaps as traders, who took local wives, converted them to Judaism, and thereafter married only within the religion.
Another pursuit that interests him, one of high promise for reconstructing human evolutionary history, is that of discovering which genes bear the mark of recent natural selection. When a new version of a gene becomes more common, it leaves a pattern of changes that geneticists can detect with various statistical tests. Many of these selected genes reflect new diets or defenses against disease or adaptations to new climates. But they tend to differ from one race to another because each human population, after the dispersal from Africa some 50,000 years ago, has had to adapt to different circumstances.
This newish finding has raised fears that other, more significant differences might emerge among races, spurring a resurrection of racist doctrines.
He says he thinks that no significant genetic differences will be found between races because of his belief in the efficiency of natural selection. Just as selection turns out to have pruned away most disease-causing variants, it has also maximized human cognitive capacities because these are so critical to survival.
As part of a project on schizophrenia, Dr. Goldstein has done a genomewide association study on 2,000 volunteers of all races who were put through cognitive tests. “We have looked at the effect of common variation on cognition, and there is nothing,” Dr. Goldstein said, meaning that he can find no common genetic variants that affect intelligence. His view is that intelligence was developed early in human evolutionary history and was then standardized.source