Is the high Jewish frequency of hg G representative of the pre-Arabic Levant ?

[Maciamo]

There is little doubt now that haplogroup G was one of the main lineages of the people who spread agriculture from the Levant to the Middle East and Europe. Early farming arose in the Levant, and the highest genetic diversity for haplogroup G is also found in the Levant. The odd thing is that hg G is remarkably sparse in the region today: only around 3 or 4%, except in Lebanon where it is a little bit higher (6.5%), but still nowhere like a major local haplogroup. In contrast, Ashkenazi Jews have 10% of G, and Sephardic Jews 15%. Since the Jewish diaspora took place about 2000 years ago, before the Arabic conquest of the Middle East, it would make sense to think that the percentage of hg G was considerably higher in the southern Levant 2000 years ago than today. So did the Arabs cause haplogroup G to contract at least three times and perhaps as much as five fold ?

In modern Palestine, haplogroup J1 makes up about 40% of the lineages, twice more than among the Jewish community. Since J1 is strongly associated with the Arabic expansion, it is reasonable to assume that at least a fifth of the lineages in the region were taken over by the Arabs. The Arabs surely also carried haplogroups E1b1b and T, common on the Red Sea coast of Arabia, and which are slightly higher among Palestinians than among the Jews. So we could assume that approximately 25% of Palestinian lineages today came with the Arabs during the Muslim conquest.

It makes sense when looking at other haplogroups like J2 and R1b, but it still doesn't explain the sharp drop experienced by haplogroup G from 10-15% to 3%. It could be that G was considerably more common among the Jews of the diaspora, which caused a sort of founder effect.

But then why was G so ubiquitous in all Neolithic sites tested so far ? Europe has been affected as much by the sharp decline of G as the Levant. What other factors could have caused a gradual decrease of G since the Neolithic ? Were G men more frequently the victims of foreign invasions because they had settled the fertile Mediterranean lands first ? Each invasion in the last 9000 years would have progressively reduced the proportion of the original Neolithic farmers as new people settled in. But then why hasn't E1b1b, which also spread agriculture from the Neolithic Levant, undergone the same decline ?

Another possibility is that the G Y-chromosome produces slightly less male offspring than other haplogroups. I theorised five years ago that the exceptionally wide distribution of haplogroup R1b (and in fact also R1a) was due in part to a genetic bias towards producing slightly more male children. It doesn't take much to achieve this over hundreds of generations. If haplogroup R1 produced just 1% more boys than other haplogroups in average, R1 would increase its proportion 7.4 folds after the roughly 200 generations since the presumed arrival of R1b in Western Europe 6000 years ago.

In other words, if a population was composed of 100 R1b men and 100 men belonging to other haplogroups, if R1b men fathered 101 boys each generation, but other haplogroups kept a stable 100, it would take only 70 generations (about 2000 years) for R1b men to reach 200 boys born each generation, and therefore double their proportion against other haplogroups. The R1b frequency would thus pass from 50% to 66.6%. After 200 generations (about 6000 years), there would be 738 R1b boys against 100 other boys born at each generation. R1b would now make up 88% of the lineages in that population. As you can see a very minor initial advantage can lead to enormous changes in frequencies after a few millennia. Western Europe now has about 60% of R1b in average. With a bias of 1% more boys per generation, it would have taken an initial population of less than 10% of R1b 6000 years ago to reach that modern proportion.

If haplogroup G had the opposite bias, and produced 1% less boys than men belonging to other haplogroups, its proportion would gradually decline without any other factor required. If a given Neolithic population had 50% of hg G, with a bias of -1% of boys per generation against other haplogroups, it would have taken about 7000 years for the proportion of G to naturally decline to only 5% of the population.

If we combine both the positive bias of R1b (and possibly others like R1a, some subclades of J2 or E1b1b) and the negative bias of G2a (and possibly many subclades of F, I, J1xJ1c3, and T), it would in fact take much less than a 1% bias in each direction for frequencies for shift dramatically since the Neolithic or Bronze Age.

Each mutation on the Y-chromosome can potentially increase or decrease the proportion of male offspring. I believe that this is how some haplogroups or subclades become numerically dominant in the long run, while others progressively disappear. Most mutations have no effect at all. That is why, once a mutation increasing the chances of having more male children, and therefore increasing the chances of survival of the Y-chromosome itself, takes place, the lineage can develop many new subclades without being affected positively or negatively. Some new subclades will eventually get even more positive mutations, while others will go back to a more stable male-female ratio.

I wouldn't be surprised if haplogroup G suffered such a disadvantage at first, at least until one of the mutations around G2a3b or G2a3b1 happened, which stimulated the growth of that particular branch. Likewise, widespread branches of hg I, like I1 and I2a1b (M423) probably owe some of their success to mutations conferring a slight bias towards more male offspring. Such a bias would be almost imperceptible in genealogical times (within a few generations), but significant over hundreds of generations.

[Ivan]

There is little doubt now that haplogroup G was one of the main lineages of the people who spread agriculture from the Levant to the Middle East and Europe. Early farming arose in the Levant, and the highest genetic diversity for haplogroup G is also found in the Levant.

Can you post Levant data for comparison.

I read 0.90 Armenia and 0.89 Azerbaijan. 0.7x Assyrians (I am not sure of this one)
I don't have links now, but the next best thing would be FTDNA Armenian project which has some 14 types of G.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

It would be unusual if high diversity could be traced on such a vast area.

[Anthro-inclined]

Another possibility is that the G Y-chromosome produces slightly less male offspring than other haplogroups. I theorised five years ago that the exceptionally wide distribution of haplogroup R1b (and in fact also R1a) was due in part to a genetic bias towards producing slightly more male children. It doesn't take much to achieve this over hundreds of generations. If haplogroup R1 produced just 1% more boys than other haplogroups in average, R1 would increase its proportion 7.4 folds after the roughly 200 generations since the presumed arrival of R1b in Western Europe 6000 years ago.

In other words, if a population was composed of 100 R1b men and 100 men belonging to other haplogroups, if R1b men fathered 101 boys each generation, but other haplogroups kept a stable 100, it would take only 70 generations (about 2000 years) for R1b men to reach 200 boys born each generation, and therefore double their proportion against other haplogroups. The R1b frequency would thus pass from 50% to 66.6%. After 200 generations (about 6000 years), there would be 738 R1b boys against 100 other boys born at each generation. R1b would now make up 88% of the lineages in that population. As you can see a very minor initial advantage can lead to enormous changes in frequencies after a few millennia. Western Europe now has about 60% of R1b in average. With a bias of 1% more boys per generation, it would have taken an initial population of less than 10% of R1b 6000 years ago to reach that modern proportion.

If haplogroup G had the opposite bias, and produced 1% less boys than men belonging to other haplogroups, its proportion would gradually decline without any other factor required. If a given Neolithic population had 50% of hg G, with a bias of -1% of boys per generation against other haplogroups, it would have taken about 7000 years for the proportion of G to naturally decline to only 5% of the population.

If we combine both the positive bias of R1b (and possibly others like R1a, some subclades of J2 or E1b1b) and the negative bias of G2a (and possibly many subclades of F, I, J1xJ1c3, and T), it would in fact take much less than a 1% bias in each direction for frequencies for shift dramatically since the Neolithic or Bronze Age.

Each mutation on the Y-chromosome can potentially increase or decrease the proportion of male offspring. I believe that this is how some haplogroups or subclades become numerically dominant in the long run, while others progressively disappear. Most mutations have no effect at all. That is why, once a mutation increasing the chances of having more male children, and therefore increasing the chances of survival of the Y-chromosome itself, takes place, the lineage can develop many new subclades without being affected positively or negatively. Some new subclades will eventually get even more positive mutations, while others will go back to a more stable male-female ratio.

I wouldn't be surprised if haplogroup G suffered such a disadvantage at first, at least until one of the mutations around G2a3b or G2a3b1 happened, which stimulated the growth of that particular branch. Likewise, widespread branches of hg I, like I1 and I2a1b (M423) probably owe some of their success to mutations conferring a slight bias towards more male offspring. Such a bias would be almost imperceptible in genealogical times (within a few generations), but significant over hundreds of generations.

This makes absolute, no sense to me, i have never heard of anything in the biological community that Y Dna would have a predisposition to create male offspring, it serves no advantage in procreation, in fact if this were true it would indeed harm gene passing. Imagine if there was a group of 100% r1b men, because you were right and over time their y dna had a gene which evolved to create more male offspring, eventually, if what you say is true, the men would out number the women, and with even with a slight imbalance in gender, we can see extremely detrimental effects on population structures. An example is in India, there is only a 3 percent gap between the number of women and men, and with this small difference, the population is suffering huge fluxes in growth and fertility. Obviously with 1 billion people the populous wont collapse, but apply that to a group of only a few hundred.

Also please dont use the fact that india is 40% r1a to prove your point, the population imbalance is caused by women getting abortions when they find out they're having a girl, this is because in Indian culture a boy serves a better economic and social standing.

[Ivan]

The odd thing is that hg G is remarkably sparse in the region today: only around 3 or 4%, except in Lebanon where it is a little bit higher (6.5%), but still nowhere like a major local haplogroup. In contrast, Ashkenazi Jews have 10% of G, and Sephardic Jews 15%. Since the Jewish diaspora took place about 2000 years ago, before the Arabic conquest of the Middle East, it would make sense to think that the percentage of hg G was considerably higher in the southern Levant 2000 years ago than today. So did the Arabs cause haplogroup G to contract at least three times and perhaps as much as five fold ?

Surely, actually being an original ME group, like J1, J2, EV13, it is unclear how and why G has just 10% (actually this is quite a small percentage for a ME group), some even say 7%, among Ashkenazi population.

This ME group is apparently outnumbered also by R1b, R1a and even close with haplogroup I among Jews. (The site with this info is hacked, so I don't know exact numbers), but about 1/3 of Jews are actually R1b+R1a+I. Again G (an original ME group) is 3 x outnumbered, and this time by European groups. The data was extrapolated from FTDNA projects for Jews.

t makes sense when looking at other haplogroups like J2 and R1b, but it still doesn't explain the sharp drop experienced by haplogroup G from 10-15% to 3%. It could be that G was considerably more common among the Jews of the diaspora, which caused a sort of founder effect.

Or they were converts from Caucasus in the times of Khazars.


There are also some curious inconsistencies:

There is a lot of G i Georgia but just 4,8% of Jews among them.
For now, there is 0% of G among Iranian Jews which are thought to have quite a long history there.

Another possibility is that the G Y-chromosome produces slightly less male offspring than other haplogroups. I theorised five years ago that the exceptionally wide distribution of haplogroup R1b (and in fact also R1a) was due in part to a genetic bias towards producing slightly more male children. It doesn't take much to achieve this over hundreds of generations. If haplogroup R1 produced just 1% more boys than other haplogroups in average, R1 would increase its proportion 7.4 folds after the roughly 200 generations since the presumed arrival of R1b in Western Europe 6000 years ago.

Based on the Caucasus types apparently not. There is data about WW2, where 1 Ossetian family lost all 7 sons, quite a lot loosing 5 sons each and even more families loosing all 4 sons in the war. Circassians apparently had a decent amount of sons. And Circassians in diaspora bounced back in numbers after they left Caucasus.

Also G is holding its presence in north western parts quite good, alongside J1 and J2

There are some threads on other sites that write about demographic rate of western nations compared to the immigrants. The data I have read is almost negative in demographic terms. This implies that a smaller number of kids born in western nations (regardless of sexes), can bring quite a change in quite a small time frame.

[sparkey]

Rather than speculating about Jews, it may be more useful to compare Lebanese communities, which we have good studies about, like here.

Comparing Maronites (presumably more representative of the pre-Arab Levant than most populations) and Lebanese Muslims (presumably having some Arab influence) gives the following haplogroup shifts:

Maronite->Muslim
E1b: +5%
G: +3% (!)
I: -2%
J1: +3%
J2: -8%
L: -2%
R: 0%
T: 0%

I don't think I've seen evidence that the ancient Levant had substantial G. I'd continue with the "expansion within the diaspora" hypothesis, personally.

[Maciamo]

This makes absolute, no sense to me, i have never heard of anything in the biological community that Y Dna would have a predisposition to create male offspring, it serves no advantage in procreation, in fact if this were true it would indeed harm gene passing.

The Y-chromosome is the only thing that differentiates men from women. Its only role is male procreation (giving a person male organs and attributes instead of female ones). Mutations on the Y chromosomes do have an influence on the individual's sperm count and quality, which are important factors in the gender determination of a foetus. I am not going to make you a full lesson in biology. If you are interested, buy a book on the subject or search the Web.

Imagine if there was a group of 100% r1b men, because you were right and over time their y dna had a gene which evolved to create more male offspring, eventually, if what you say is true, the men would out number the women, and with even with a slight imbalance in gender, we can see extremely detrimental effects on population structures. An example is in India, there is only a 3 percent gap between the number of women and men, and with this small difference, the population is suffering huge fluxes in growth and fertility. Obviously with 1 billion people the populous wont collapse, but apply that to a group of only a few hundred.

I have simplified the situation for the sake of the argument. In nature forces in one direction are counter-acted by another in the opposite direction. The same selection process happens for women as well. Whether this is determined by mtDNA, the X-chromosomes and/or other chromosomes is less clear, but women's bodies actively select spermatozoa at the time of conception. This is mainly done by regulating the pH level in the cervix and uterus. An acid environment will kill more male spermatozoa, increasing the chances of conceiving a girl. It is very possible that mtDNA plays a role in determining this pH level. Studies have indeed linked mtDNA haplogroups to pH levels in other body parts, including the brain.

I understand that this kind of information can be perplexing for a neophyte, but you have to trust me on this. The reason you haven't read similar ideas on other forums is probably that there aren't many scientists spending time on those forums.

The frequency of mtDNA haplogroups has changed a lot too since the Neolithic. The mt-haplogroup that seems to have the strongest bias towards mothering girls is H. This was recently mentioned in the AAPA Abstracts for those who hadn't noticed yet.

[Anthro-inclined]

The Y-chromosome is the only thing that differentiates men from women. Its only role is male procreation (giving a person male organs and attributes instead of female ones). Mutations on the Y chromosomes do have an influence on the individual's sperm count and quality, which are important factors in the gender determination of a foetus. I am not going to make you a full lesson in biology. If you are interested, buy a book on the subject or search the Web.



I have simplified the situation for the sake of the argument. In nature forces in one direction are counter-acted by another in the opposite direction. The same selection process happens for women as well. Whether this is determined by mtDNA, the X-chromosomes and/or other chromosomes is less clear, but women's bodies actively select spermatozoa at the time of conception. This is mainly done by regulating the pH level in the cervix and uterus. An acid environment will kill more male spermatozoa, increasing the chances of conceiving a girl. It is very possible that mtDNA plays a role in determining this pH level. Studies have indeed linked mtDNA haplogroups to pH levels in other body parts, including the brain.

I understand that this kind of information can be perplexing for a neophyte, but you have to trust me on this. The reason you haven't read similar ideas on other forums is probably that there aren't many scientists spending time on those forums.

I'm not getting my info from other forums, i just notice that there is a lack of scientific proof for this theory.All id like to see one study or paper that shows specific Y DNA creating more boys, but i have yet to see one.Also if no biologist is spending time on this theory, you could have the next great discovery in genetics and biology, Why not try to compile a study or prove a demographic shift that relates to your theory yourself. If it is true then good job, but all i see is a lot of story telling and little reliance on what the scientific community has proven. Any professionally done scientific study that you can provide me with that will show some proof to what you are saying will be great.

Also sorry if you feel im being i little bit annoying, but if someone throws out a theory i like to put them to the test.

[nordicwarrior]

R1b's massive population advantage in Western Europe has more to do with the way they structure their societies more than any biological differences.

How do you explain R1b's dominance in the Royal lineages? Is this for biological reasons? We are dancing around the white elephant in the living room.

[LeBrok]

This makes absolute, no sense to me, i have never heard of anything in the biological community that Y Dna would have a predisposition to create male offspring, it serves no advantage in procreation, in fact if this were true it would indeed harm gene passing. Imagine if there was a group of 100% r1b men, because you were right and over time their y dna had a gene which evolved to create more male offspring, eventually, if what you say is true, the men would out number the women, and with even with a slight imbalance in gender, we can see extremely detrimental effects on population structures. An example is in India, there is only a 3 percent gap between the number of women and men, and with this small difference, the population is suffering huge fluxes in growth and fertility. Obviously with 1 billion people the populous wont collapse, but apply that to a group of only a few hundred.

Also please dont use the fact that india is 40% r1a to prove your point, the population imbalance is caused by women getting abortions when they find out they're having a girl, this is because in Indian culture a boy serves a better economic and social standing.

Two things.
1. Even though birth ratio circulates at close to 1 to 1 between boys and girls, there was always bigger imbalance between man and women at procreative age. In time of war a tribe could lose 50% of males. In time of peace more women than men were dying mostly during birthing, which used to be a very dangerous business for women. In pre-christian Europe elite men had many wives, while poor dudes were left with none.

2. I'm not sure why you dismissed at hand that Y chromosome has nothing to do with evolutionary advantages. I guess, we all agree here, that evolution of our species, therefore our DNA, was based mostly on acquiring new mutations. The mutations that gave an edge to our ancestors where passed forward to next generation. Now, we can be pretty sure that when we see changes on Y chromosome, comparing to very old lineages, majority of them were due to evolutionary forcings. Otherwise, we would be left to explain why YDNA is immune from evolution.
Maciamo's hypothesis is well in line with natural selection, evolutionary advantages that were passed to us from our ancestors. On top of it it makes easy sense with numbers.
Why would we dismiss this possibility knowing that sperm is directly responsible for future generation?

[Anthro-inclined]

Two things.
1. Even though birth ratio circulates at close to 1 to 1 between boys and girls, there was always bigger imbalance between man and women at procreative age. In time of war a tribe could lose 50% of males. In time of peace more women than men were dying mostly during birthing, which used to be a very dangerous business for women. In pre-christian Europe elite men had many wives, while poor dudes were left with none.

This point is invalid, i am talking about genes and specifically about a mutation in Y DNA that has predisposition to create boys, not why one group of descendents replace another, go to a forum that talks about R1b,and its rapid expansion, but this is not the point i am arguing.

2. I'm not sure why you dismissed at hand that Y chromosome has nothing to do with evolutionary advantages. I guess, we all agree here, that evolution of our species, therefore our DNA, was based mostly on acquiring new mutations. The mutations that gave an edge to our ancestors where passed forward to next generation. Now, we can be pretty sure that when we see changes on Y chromosome, comparing to very old lineages, majority of them were due to evolutionary forcings. Otherwise, we would be left to explain why YDNA is immune from evolution.
Maciamo's hypothesis is well in line with natural selection, evolutionary advantages that were passed to us from our ancestors.
Why would we dismiss this possibility knowing that sperm is directly responsible for future generation?

OK, thanks for misquoting the hell out of me. Clearly you misread what a wrote. I never said anything about y DNA not developing mutations to fit evolutionary advantages, in fact i used this as a point for my argument. When species migrate and cover the globe, we develop mutations in our DNA through the generations to help adapt to our circumstances, that i absolutely agree with. My gripe was that this mutation that Maciamo has theorized, has a tendency to create boys, and i believe that this serves no evolutionary advantage, and as i described can even harm population growth.

If you are going to argue against someone, please know what the other person has argued for.

[zanipolo]

We all realise , ( I hope we do ) that ALL humans are conceived as females and the creation of a male begins after 6 weeks of pregnancy.
http://www.examiner.com/article/we-r...-females-first

Also, There is no Jewish haplogroups there are only jewish alleles and even these are distorted to created a percentage of "jewish" far greater than truly exist. There are people who have these jewish alleles and have never been jews yet they show up in AuDna tests as having some jewishness. IMO , noting a Hg as jewish or nordic, berber etc etc is nonsense.

The jewish homeland of creation is around modern kuwait, basra area ( where to this day shite and sunnis die to gain a foothold ) and not the levant


The birtrate split between female and male has always favoured the female in history , its basically 6 females for every 11 children born. Females just have/had a shorter life expectancy in the ancient, medieval and recent history

[Sennevini]

I don't know of G in general in Jews, but at least in Ashkenazi Jews it mostly exists of G-M377. see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogr...77_%28Y-DNA%29.
This group is known to make ca. 7% of Ashkenazi Y-dna haplogroups, and of Europeans with this group 95% has an Ashkenazi patrilineal line. So this type of G to me non-European. It is also found in Pashtuns, and Syrians but in them indeed in very low frequencies. Ashkenazi went through severe bottlenecks in Medieval time., which certainly account for the distorted percentage of this group in them. Don't know about other G-groups in Jewry though.

[LeBrok]

This point is invalid, i am talking about genes and specifically about a mutation in Y DNA that has predisposition to create boys, not why one group of descendents replace another, go to a forum that talks about R1b,and its rapid expansion, but this is not the point i am arguing.
OK, thanks for misquoting the hell out of me. Clearly you misread what a wrote. I never said anything about y DNA not developing mutations to fit evolutionary advantages, in fact i used this as a point for my argument. When species migrate and cover the globe, we develop mutations in our DNA through the generations to help adapt to our circumstances, that i absolutely agree with.

I'm glad. :)

My gripe was that this mutation that Maciamo has theorized, has a tendency to create boys, and i believe that this serves no evolutionary advantage, and as i described can even harm population growth.

Not necessarily. Just because we can't see clearly, at the moment, the whole process of supposed advantage, it doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't exist.

Let's say it could work this way. In R1b only group will have more boys than girls. It's true that fewer females mean a slower growth of whole population in general, when compared to other HG groups.
In real life there were always wars therefore number of men was, in most times, smaller than number of women. In this case, having more male offspring, (warriors who died faster than girls) actually creates an advantage for the whole R1b group. Well, as long as more warriors could bring more "fresh" women home. Who knows, maybe the chronic lack of women forced pure R1b tribes to wars and expansions.

There is also an advantage in mixed yDNA groups. Let's say R1b father has 5 sons and 3 daughters. We know that brothers don't marry sisters, so the imbalance in R1b family doesn't bring direct consequences to R1b males, due to fewer sisters . The R1b sons will find wives among other families.

[nordicwarrior]

Two things.
1. ... In...Europe elite men had many wives, while poor dudes were left with none.

2. I'm not sure why you dismissed at hand that Y chromosome has nothing to do with evolutionary advantages. I guess, we all agree here, that evolution of our species, therefore our DNA, was based mostly on acquiring new mutations...

Lebrok sorry for parsing some of your original wording, but I think this sentence more than any other is the reason behind R1b's population advantage.

Regarding the second line, if we reference Maciamo's haplogroup flow chart... it clearly shows that hg I has had the most recent "meta mutation" (responsible for the I1 branch). Would this newest macro mutation/advantage explain some of hg I's more recent successes? What if the contest isn't over? What if we are all still evolving?

[oriental]

Most of the people in the Levant are descendants of the Sea Peoples. I don't think the Bible is accurate history. Many who were killed against the Egyptians were circumcised so Jews and Arabs who are circumcised people, were among the Sea Peoples. The Sea Peoples displaced all those in the Levant except the Phoenicians who supplied them food. I would think that Jews were part of the Sea Peoples not the slaves who escaped. Joshua's military activities show they were warriors while slaves would be more submissive.

[Anthro-inclined]

Not necessarily. Just because we can't see clearly, at the moment, the whole process of supposed advantage, it doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't exist.

Let's say it could work this way. In R1b only group will have more boys than girls. It's true that fewer females mean a slower growth of whole population in general, when compared to other HG groups.
In real life there were always wars therefore number of men was, in most times, smaller than number of women. In this case, having more male offspring, (warriors who died faster than girls) actually creates an advantage for the whole R1b group. Well, as long as more warriors could bring more "fresh" women home. Who knows, maybe the chronic lack of women forced pure R1b tribes to wars and expansions.

There is also an advantage in mixed yDNA groups. Let's say R1b father has 5 sons and 3 daughters. We know that brothers don't marry sisters, so the imbalance in R1b family doesn't bring direct consequences to R1b males, due to fewer sisters . The R1b sons will find wives among other families.

Mutations don't develop in the manner you speak of. They are created through each subsequent generation to help adapt to circumstances like climate, physiology, biological processes, and do not develop because a specific gender is dying quicker due to war. Do you see the problem in your reasoning, a gene can't know if one gender is dying in a war, you seem to think that genes are like politicians and if needed can recruit more boys to win a war. My point being that a gene has no knowledge of current demographical shifts unless it is caused by a factor within the body. It is through natural selection that processes like war are sorted out, I.e. survival of the fittest. Also boys have married sisters, it is highly probable that because of a population bottle neck around 70000 years ago most people on the planet descend from these incestual relations. These population bottlenecks are also likely to have happened in Europe also in the LGM due to the small populations living in the refuges.

[LeBrok]

Mutations don't develop in the manner you speak of. They are created through each subsequent generation to help adapt to circumstances like climate, physiology, biological processes, and do not develop because a specific gender is dying quicker due to war. Do you see the problem in your reasoning, a gene can't know if one gender is dying in a war, you seem to think that genes are like politicians and if needed can recruit more boys to win a war.

The scenarios that I described are after the mutation happened. They are not the cause of mutation. The scenarios show the possible advantageous consequences for R1b in relation to already mutated gen on Y chromosome.

How are my scenarios now when you know this fact? More believable?

Anything else I don't get?


PS. Having offspring with sisters or cousins are known occurrences from our past, especially in small separated groups. Obviously it doesn't add much variety into genetic pull, and benefits to the group, that's why it is practiced so rarely or almost nowhere. To the point that we have laws against such happenings. Because most of the time we didn't married our sisters the mutation, the we speak of, could have easily happened after bootlenecking, replacing other forms of R1bs (without this mutation) in future generations.

[LeBrok]

Lebrok sorry for parsing some of your original wording, but I think this sentence more than any other is the reason behind R1b's population advantage.

Regarding the second line, if we reference Maciamo's haplogroup flow chart... it clearly shows that hg I has had the most recent "meta mutation" (responsible for the I1 branch). Would this newest macro mutation/advantage explain some of hg I's more recent successes? What if the contest isn't over? What if we are all still evolving?

The process never stops. It's blind and accidental, just mistakes in genome copying process. Some mutation can occur by insertion of viral dna, or duplication of existing segments.
Many mutations don't change much in dna expression, some other are "weeded" out at conceptions of life by early death. Many men suffers infertility because of bad mutation on Y. Rarely nature strikes a "Bingo" moment giving a fortunate person some sort of advantage over others. But by history of Yhg we know it happens from time to time.

[Anthro-inclined]

The scenarios that I described are after the mutation happened. They are not the cause of mutation. The scenarios show the possible advantageous consequences for R1b in relation to already mutated gen on Y chromosome.

Anything else I don't get?


PS. Having offspring with sisters or cousins are known occurrences from our past, especially in small separated groups. Obviously it doesn't add much variety into genetic pull, and benefits to the group, that's why it is practiced so rarely or almost nowhere. To the point that we have laws against such happenings. Because most of the time we didn't married our sisters the mutation, the we speak of, could have easily happened after bootlenecking, replacing other forms of R1bs (without this mutation) in future generations.

a gene doesn't just mutate for the sake of it, something must spark the change, it sounds to me like your saying that genes will mutate for experimental purposes. This is not the case THERE MUST BE AN INTIAL CHANGE in the climate or your biology, genes don't have the power to make guesses about the future, this is because they occur only with each subsequent generation. And the reason I said that bit on interrelated unions is because YOU stated it didn't occur in your previous post.

[LeBrok]

The process never stops. It's blind and accidental, just mistakes in genome copping process. Some mutation can occur by insertion of viral dna, or duplication of existing segments.
Many mutations don't change much in dna expression, some other are "weeded" out at conceptions of life by early death. Many men suffers infertility because of bad mutation on Y. Rarely nature strikes a "Bingo" moment giving a fortunate person some sort of advantage over others. But by history of Yhg we know it happens from time to time.

The process might end when in future we'll "build" our offspring DNA in hospitals. Instead of risking screwing it up by making a baby at home. Although our internal longing to always improve the design will make us changing DNA anyway. So the process won't stop at all. It will only acquire more controlled stage, phase of intelligent design if you wish, going away with natural and wild card modifications.

[Anthro-inclined]

I see that I have diverged from the topic of this thread completely and cannot continue to add to it in a meaningful way. So I will stop with my participation in debate on this theory.

[LeBrok]

a gene doesn't just mutate for the sake of it

Oh, but it does. Refer to my post #19

, something must spark the change, it sounds to me like your saying that genes will mutate for experimental purposes.

Completely no purpose or reason.
There are lots of sparks: copying mistakes, viral infections, duplication of segments, deletions, and who knows what yet. All mutations are "blind", with no knowledge of it's role or existence.

This is not the case THERE MUST BE AN INTIAL CHANGE in the climate or your biology

Nope, the new mutation only has to be better fitted to environment than original dna, that's all. There are also situations when environment changes, and one of existing mutations is already in place to take advantage of it better than others, to capitalize on it's advantage with more offspring.
At any given moment there are many mutations available already, sort of in waiting. Look at variety of human kind, and amount of Y haplogroups. Mutations are already in place, and many more coming with every human birth. Even monozigotic twins are not 100% identical, though they've started from same first cell, but acquired few different mutations during cell divisions.

And the reason I said that bit on interrelated unions is because YOU stated it didn't occur in your previous post.

No sweat, there are and were so uncommon that I didn't bring them to the equation. We might think about them more often when talking about bottle-necking factors.

[Anthro-inclined]

Oh, but it does. Refer to my post #19


Completely no purpose or reason.
There are lots of sparks: copying mistakes, viral infections, duplication of segments, deletions, and who knows what yet. All mutations are "blind", with no knowledge of it's role or existence.




Nope, the new mutation only has to be better fitted to environment than original dna, that's all. There are also situations when environment changes, and one of existing mutations is already in place to take advantage of it better than others, to capitalize on it's advantage with more offspring.
At any given moment there are many mutations available already, sort of in waiting. Look at variety of human kind, and amount of Y haplogroups. Mutations are already in place, and many more coming with every human birth. Even monozigotic twins are not 100% identical, though they've started from same first cell, but acquired few different mutations during cell divisions.



No sweat, there are and were so uncommon that I didn't bring them to the equation. We might think about them more often when talking about bottle-necking factors.

Ok one last point, mistakes on genes are 70 percent of the time harmful to the persons health and in the other 30 percent of cases had no effect on procreation and this BINGO moment you speak of hasn't been proven in the field of biology yet. Also to clarify, I understand that there are mistakes that occur during procreation, but I thought you were inferring that a predisposition to create boys was intentional, my mistake.

[Maciamo]

Two things.
1. Even though birth ratio circulates at close to 1 to 1 between boys and girls, there was always bigger imbalance between man and women at procreative age. In time of war a tribe could lose 50% of males. In time of peace more women than men were dying mostly during birthing, which used to be a very dangerous business for women. In pre-christian Europe elite men had many wives, while poor dudes were left with none.

2. I'm not sure why you dismissed at hand that Y chromosome has nothing to do with evolutionary advantages. I guess, we all agree here, that evolution of our species, therefore our DNA, was based mostly on acquiring new mutations. The mutations that gave an edge to our ancestors where passed forward to next generation. Now, we can be pretty sure that when we see changes on Y chromosome, comparing to very old lineages, majority of them were due to evolutionary forcings. Otherwise, we would be left to explain why YDNA is immune from evolution.
Maciamo's hypothesis is well in line with natural selection, evolutionary advantages that were passed to us from our ancestors. On top of it it makes easy sense with numbers.
Why would we dismiss this possibility knowing that sperm is directly responsible for future generation?

Thanks for bringing up the facts that there is always slightly more boys than girls at birth and that this may be a natural way to counter male losses in wars. I wanted to mention it in my reply to Anthro-inclined, then got pressed up by the time yesterday and didn't.

I recall seeing a study about 5 years ago which stated that R1a men in India (or was it Pakistan?) were more aggressive than men belonging to other haplogroups. Unfortunately I cannot find the article anymore, but it was an important step in establishing the reasons why R1a (and probably also R1b) expanded so successfully since the Bronze Age (and also in the European colonisation, if you think about it, as the colonising nations were mostly from the R1b fringe of Europe). My point here is that R1a and R1b might procreate slightly more boys because they have slightly higher testosterone, which leads them to become more aggressive and potentially also have a higher casualty rate than men in other societies. Celtic people have been known since ancient times to argue and fight with each others all the time, and this is still true in countries that remained the most Celtic culturally as well as genetically (namely Ireland, Wales and the Scottish Highlands). All have extremely high percentages of hg R1 (over 80%). Therefore I believe that this heightened aggressiveness/testosterone is directly linked with the slightly increased ratio of male births.

[Ivan]

My point here is that R1a and R1b might procreate slightly more boys because they have slightly higher testosterone, which leads them to become more aggressive and potentially also have a higher casualty rate than men in other societies. Celtic people have been known since ancient times to argue and fight with each others all the time, and this is still true in countries that remained the most Celtic culturally as well as genetically (namely Ireland, Wales and the Scottish Highlands). All have extremely high percentages of hg R1 (over 80%). Therefore I believe that this heightened aggressiveness/testosterone is directly linked with the slightly increased ratio of male births.

Thanks for the information.

It must hold some weight, since you had to prove your point, even in the example of this thread, where you and LeBrok apparently had to win an argument (presumably driven by the forces you have described). And you effectively proved it again, by showing us a need for domination over smaller groups, even in unproved (for now though), theories. I do respect a hint of aggressiveness as it conveys a good connection to your own ideas and thoughts. But above that I respect sense of reality, and calm strength, that usually comes after a long battle with your own aggression. This is what I liked about European groups. My opinion, I could be wrong off course, is that you should hold onto rational authority, which suits and compliments you best.

To put it this way, the aggression you described is really more common throughout the ME (as seen in recent years), and there is a long history of such aggression. West in general looks a bit off the image you have described. My own experience is that of calm and kind types of western people. But then this can indicate otherwise.


Since this thread is about my own group. I suppose your initial statement concerns dominance over smaller groups - my included (if not addressed directly). I have to say a few things here.

G is found in among Palestinians (22%), Circassians, Ossetians, Georgians, Corsicans, and Khazakstan. If you know the history of these people it is a story of a long struggle.

Nevertheless, courage, rationality, and morality are respected and praised and even more so in case of foreigners that show those qualities. The guest is sacred and protected by life in some of those cultures.

I have a respect for the cultural and moral values of your group, as well as any proven in ancient battlefields. And honestly, I could hardly muster enough animosity, even if I tried, for a real argument.