PDA

View Full Version : G2a Athletic performance/Body types



G2ian
27-02-19, 09:23
..............................

Yetos
28-02-19, 09:04
I think athletic perfomances have to do more with mtDNA, and length of muscular fibers.

06-12-19, 22:41
Well, I'm G2a-Z726 and I'm no fighter. I'm the tall skinny guy who uses humor to try to defuse the situation.

And . . . since your Y-DNA only represents a very small fraction of your biological inheritance I can't see how this proposition can be true. On the other hand, MMA fighters from the Caucasus being the best? Sure, it's an isolated community that shares a lot, genetically, why not this predisposition?

Regio X
06-12-19, 23:04
Khabib Nurmagomedov is from the town with the highest concentration of G2a on earth.Could you provide the source?

06-12-19, 23:18
Because you carry minimal amounts of the ancestral population being, by your own admission, English/German as opposed to originating from the Caucasus where we see the highest genetic diversity of G2a types. What does this mean? It means that the autosomal component that was found in the original G2a carrying populations is highest in the Caucasus and very low elsewhere.


Pater, I think you're agreeing with me. I do not dispute that Caucasians may share physical traits and may be disproportionally MMA type fighters, but that is because they share a basic Caucasian genetic type, that is an autosomal type. Y-DNA is just one small part of your background. I may have many German and English forebears, but both you and I only have one strand of Y-DNA.

aci
06-12-19, 23:41
Right but did you take a look at the article? It says, what I have always believed: that the Y-chromosome is the "control gene" in males and controls the manifestation of autosomal characteristics and thus is preserved from father to son unchanged. What first led me to that belief was trying to rationalize how and why on earth the Y-chromosome would remain intact if it were just a fertility issue and we see no demonstrable differences between paternal haplogroups and fertility. Meaning, R1b should be extremely fertile and G2a should be extremely infertile based on the current narrative. What I and saying and what is backed up by the article and paper is that the Y-chromosome controls all the others. It creates "dynasties" so to speak. Certain dynasties would advantageously reproduce not like rats but because of shared traits in the males.

“The Y chromosome doesn’t just say you’re a male; it doesn’t just say you’re a male and you’re fertile. It says that you’re a male, you’re fertile, and you’re going to survive,”

Now I am not saying that this means that G2a = fighters. However, it has merit given we are starting to realize "hey the Y-chromosome does not just determine you are male and gives us something fun to study as a hobby in the 21st century with the advent of genetic testing and furthermore it effects characteristics". Those advantageous characteristics could be fighting but they could be shrewdness or psychopathy or resistance to altitude. We don't know yet but we do know the fertility aspect is not the whole picture.

I think you have a degree of relevance in what you say.
Cheers!

Regio X
06-12-19, 23:43
@Shissem
Yeah, I suppose he agrees with you after all, indeed.

@Pater
You seem a bit confused also regarding the articles you shared. Fellow, you're jumping to conclusions using binary reasoning and projecting the role of the entire Y chromosome into generic haplogroups.

Btw, I'd be very interested in the (pre-Indo-European) G-L497 in Dagestan. Make sure to provide the source also to this, when you're back from your trip.
Thanks in advance.

06-12-19, 23:52
Pater, okay. I was afraid you were going down the trail that "we Caucasians are better than anyone because we're G2a." I'm glad to see that I was wrong.

I don't know what to make of the Nature article (I'm just not knowledgeable enough to have an intelligent opinion) and I haven't paid to read the full study. I'll have to wait for the smart guys on this site to weigh in.

I have wondered about explainers, including on this site, that claim that our DNA contains many chromosomes that don't do anything, are just "junk." It's seems safer (wiser) to say that they don't do anything 'as far as we know today.' The same goes for saying Y-DNA is just a sex determiner.

Regio X
07-12-19, 00:28
@Shissem
Yeah, I suppose he agrees with you after all, indeed.
@Pater
You seem a bit confused also regarding the articles you shared. Fellow, you're jumping to conclusions using binary reasoning and projecting the role of the entire Y chromosome into generic haplogroups.
Btw, I'd be very interested in the (pre-Indo-European) G-L497 in Dagestan. Make sure to provide the source also to this, when you're back from your trip.
Thanks in advance.Ops! It seems the part of G-L497 in Dagestan was edited. I should have quoted it.
Well, well...

@Shissem
Don't bother!

aci
07-12-19, 00:34
.....................