<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>
 
I'm an anthropologist, so I just *couldn't* let Bec's post pass without
comment.
 
In message Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:23:55 -0500,
  Rebecca Markle <[log in to unmask]>  writes:
 
> Years ago, I had a very good archeology prof who made the case that
> Neandertal man is not extinct.  (snip) his point was, that he
> had several of the characteristics.  The point he was trying to make was
> that  Cro-magnon man (who developed in the Near East, the same site where
> grain was cultivated) moved into Europe (site of Neandertal man, who was
> a hunter/gatherer & had a different diet altogether).  Undoubtedly, the
> two races intermingled, and the genes of Neandertal are still evident in
> parts of Europe.
 
Just a point of clarification--grain wasn't cultivated in the Near East
during the Cro-Magnon period.  Cro-Magnon (or modern people) replaced
Neanderthals (most often listed as a subspecies of our own species, Homo
sapiens), *in Europe* around 35-40,000 years ago.
The earliest grain agriculture in the
fertile crescent area of the Near East dates to no more than about 10,000
years ago.  There are debates about whether or not Neanderthals were good
hunters, but all archaeologists agree that the subsistence base for both
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons was hunting and gathering, though the
percentages and types of plant and animal foods in their diets may have
varied.  Probably both groups ate gluten-free diets.
 
> ...But IF we had these metabolic aspects truly in common,
> and you would accept that they come about as a result of our genetic
> programming, and that programming is "somewhat" common (say, that magical
> 1 in 300), doesn't that identify us as a sub-species of the caucasian
> race?
 
no.
 
> And if we are a separate, distinct species, with our own quirky
> metabolism, gluten intolerance isn't a disease, or a pathological
> abberation, it's our racial identity!
 
We need to be careful when we discuss issues of "subspecies" or "race".
These concepts refer to separate, distinct populations, and though there may
be gene flow between such groups, these terms are designed to describe
breeding populations.  Unless we can say that celiacs are found in a
geographically circumscribed area (or were in the past), forming their own
breeding population, the idea of a celiac "race" isn't valid.  After all,
most of the evidence for the lack of celiac disease outside of Europe is
negative evidence (ie no large population studies have been conducted).
Population geneticists (anyone out there?) talk about gene frequencies
within populations rather than "racial characteristics" these days, for
example that subsaharan Africans are more likely to harbor the sickle-cell
trait than are those of Italian descent, who are in turn more likely to have
it than are Native Americans.
 
> I think it's important to note that some drugs/medications are metabolized
> differently in our bodies, because I think it is important for us to get
> proper consideration when we need medical attention.  We need effective,
> appropriate treatment that addresses our differences.
 
I agree with you, but I don't think calling ourselves a new subspecies or
race is the way to do this.
 
Laura Johnson-Kelly, who still has and uses all four wisdom teeth (a nice
Cro-Magnon/Neanderthal characteristic that is becoming rare in modern human
populations).
 
> Oh, here's another aspect I wanted to check out:  Do you tan or burn upon
> expossure to sunlight?  My family is fair skinned & we don't
> tan...ultimately, I suspect that's an interplay of the skin and the
> liver, and may define a liver type.
 
Sigh.  I don't tan, either.
 
L J-K
[log in to unmask]
Ithaca, NY, USA