American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Genes Give Africans a Better Sense of Taste

More news stories on Racial Differences

Ewen Callaway, New Scientist, January 2, 2009

{snip}

But they might all be wrong. New research suggests that Africans have more sensitive palates than Europeans and Asians—at least for bitter tastes.

A survey of numerous African populations in Kenya and Cameroon found a striking amount of diversity in a gene responsible for sensing bitter tastes.

“If they have more genetic diversity, there’s more variation in their ability to taste,” says Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, who presented the findings at a recent conference.

Europeans and Asians typically have only one of two forms of a gene called TAS2R38, which detects a bitter-tasting compound called PTC and similar chemicals in vegetables such as broccoli and Brussels sprouts.

The gene makes the difference between people tasting a weak dilution of the compound or not, with little nuance in between.

Taste test

To see how Africans stack up, Tishkoff and colleague Michael Campbell offered a wide range of dilutions of PTC to different populations of pastoralists and hunter-gatherers in Kenya and Cameroon.

“They keep tasting it until they make a yucky face and spit it out,” she says.

As a whole, Kenyans and Cameroonians sensed subtler gradients in the concentration than Europeans, they found. The Africans’ TAS2R38 genes also contained far more variation than is found in the rest of the world.

{snip}

Seafood benefits

{snip}

Tishkoff wonders why, then, Europeans lost some the ability to sense bitterness. Different diets and evolutionary forces offer one explanation, she says.

Their lack of bitter taste diversity could also be due to a paucity of genetic variation in the small number of African migrants that became ancestors to the Europeans. In general, sub-Saharan Africans boast more genetic diversity than people native to Europe and other continents.

Avoiding potentially toxic plants might not be the only reason for diversity in bitter taste genes, says Theodore Schurr, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study.

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on January 9, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Say It! wrote at 6:19 PM on January 9:

For information on other genetic related racial differences see

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

2 — Anonymous wrote at 6:37 PM on January 9:

It may have been an evolutionary reponse to differing levels of flora and fauna.

3 — Anonymous wrote at 7:11 PM on January 9:

“small number of African migrants that became ancestors to the Europeans.”

There is no scientific proof of this whatsoever. Most of it was created by the Leakey’s of Kenya because they wanted to become famous. They became famous.

Most of the studies done claiming Africans were the original humans are seriously flawed and developed to prove the claim.

4 — kitty wrote at 7:16 PM on January 9:

“In general, sub-Saharan Africans boast more genetic diversity than people native to Europe and other continents.”

Genetic diversity in what way? I read the original article, but no explanation. Perhaps someone smarter can clear this up.

5 — Diamed wrote at 9:19 PM on January 9:

Typically, the older an organism the more genetic diversity it has. It has had more time to mutate and change than younger species. Since blacks are the original humans they have the highest degree of genetic diversity. The same methods are used for plants and animals and are a well-known rule of biology.

Furthermore, all whites and asians evolved from a tiny group no larger than a couple of hundred africans who left africa and populated the rest of the world. We have much less genetic diversity because our original group was much smaller than the population of Africans who stayed in Africa.

6 — Mike wrote at 4:04 PM on January 12:

This reminds me of a novel I read about African slaves. In one part of the book, one of the slaves (an African prince) questioned the intelligence of the white people because they carried baskets with their arms, and Africans carried them on their heads…seriously.

It’s hair splitting at its best. It’s like trying to argue that blacks are superior to us because they can run really fast and have “rhythm.”

The multicults were never successful arguing that whites are inferior to the Africans, so they chose east Asians instead. Now that they’ve programmed a good number of whites to believe themselves to be inferior, they’re pushing the envelope even farther by making these claims.

7 — Anonymous wrote at 11:56 PM on January 12:

Since blacks are the original humans…Posted by Diamed at 9:19 PM on January 9

That’s a common misconception. “Blacks” as commonly known in America and much of Africa are not the original humans. Bantus only recently emerged as an evolutionary offshoot. And Banuts are only one of many races in sub-Saharam Africa.

One of these races, the San, commonly called the Bushmen, are the oldest living race of Homo Sapeiens. Here too, it wouldn’t be accurate to call the ancestors of all humans but merely the oldest surviving lineage of many lineages. Their range covered almost all of sub Saharan Africa until the Bantu expansion starting about 5000 years ago. (It was that quick, in evolution time pace.)


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search