G2a men share some common looks?

Do you think that these G2a men share some common looks?

  • They have many in common.

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • They have some common.

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • They have not.

    Votes: 9 32.1%

  • Total voters
    28
Milton Nascimento is 99.3% African. Djavan is 65% African.

Really, is Nascimento 99.3% African? Then he is surprisingly a rare outlier among Brazilian blacks. Almost all studies I have seen claim that self-declared Brazilian blacks have around 30-50% (average ~40%) of non-African ancestry. Very few managed to avoid heavy mixing with Europeans and Amerindians along the generations, especially after the 19th century.

P.S.: By the way, I'm kind of amazed that you know Djavan and Milton Nascimento so well. They'very famous in Brazil (of course), but I thought mostly unknown elsewhere. ;)
 
Really, is Nascimento 99.3% African? Then he is surprisingly a rare outlier among Brazilian blacks. Almost all studies I have seen claim that self-declared Brazilian blacks have around 30-50% (average ~40%) of non-African ancestry. Very few managed to avoid heavy mixing with Europeans and Amerindians along the generations, especially after the 19th century.
P.S.: By the way, I'm kind of amazed that you know Djavan and Milton Nascimento so well. They'very famous in Brazil (of course), but I thought mostly unknown elsewhere. ;)
Don't be surprised! I'm one of those Southerners Italo-Brazilians with dual citizenship. Cheers! ;)

I saw few time ago in a FTDNA Project a black Brazilian with more than 80% Sub-Saharan, if my memory serves me.

As for Milton and Djavan, yep! Really! Here are the sources:
https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2007/06/070531_dna_milton_cg.shtml

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2007/05/070522_dna_djavan_cg.shtml

(In continental level, the precision and recall are usually decent nowadays, but they tested in 2007. So not sure about the quality.)
 
Don't be surprised! I'm one of those Southerners Italo-Brazilians with dual citizenship. Cheers! ;)

I saw few time ago in a FTDNA Project a black Brazilian with more than 80% Sub-Saharan, if my memory serves me.

As for Milton and Djavan, yep! Really! Here are the sources:
https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2007/06/070531_dna_milton_cg.shtml

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/reporterbbc/story/2007/05/070522_dna_djavan_cg.shtml

(In continental level, the precision and recall are usually decent nowadays, but they tested in 2007. So not sure about the quality.)

Hahaha I KNEW that I couldn't be the sole Brazilian here when Brazilians usually flood all the social networks that they find. LOL Glad to meet (or rather re-meet) a fellow Brazilian here. ;)

Yes, I had seen the results of the DNA tests reported in those BBC Brazil articles. But I also wondered how accurate they are since they were made so long ago. Anyway, I think any Brazilian black with more than 90% Subsaharan ancestry is kind of an outlier, they're even less numerous than peolpe virtually 100% European ancestry.
 
Hahaha I KNEW that I couldn't be the sole Brazilian here when Brazilians usually flood all the social networks that they find. LOL Glad to meet (or rather re-meet) a fellow Brazilian here. ;)
Lol Yes, it's nice to find a fellow here, especially one who promotes high level debates, as you do. Currently I paticipate in just two forums (one is minor). I chose learning in Eupedia, in short, because imo it has a balanced "traffic" and good content, thanks to the moderation and generally good discussions headlined by reasonable and knowledgeable members, as Angela, now you, and some others. Again, cheers! :)

Yes, I had seen the results of the DNA tests reported in those BBC Brazil articles. But I also wondered how accurate they are since they were made so long ago. Anyway, I think any Brazilian black with more than 90% Subsaharan ancestry is kind of an outlier, they're even less numerous than peolpe virtually 100% European ancestry.
Yeah, I remember of the surprising results of Neguinho da Beija-Flor, who would be a black man with more European Ancestry than African. Perhaps mainly in Bahia and Rio de Janeiro you can find a good number of men with very high Sub-Saharan ancestry, but probably not in other areas. Just a guess. The same way, these "100% Europeans" may show up in certain areas, but they are indeed uncommon in Brazil as a whole. In very few generations they will be rare all over the country.

Neguinho da Beija-Flor (just 31.5% African?)
neguinho-da-beija-flor.jpg
 
I've been on a "Queen", Freddie Mercury listening binge, and it finally occurred to me that his phenotype fits in too.

He was a Parsi from India, although I don't personally see any Indian in him. Instead, he looks very Caucasus like to me, which makes sense since they originated in Iran. Interestingly, before looking him up I always thought he was of European descent of some sort, just always with a tan. :) Compare him to Keith Hernandez who is half Spanish and half Scots Irish.

keith+hernandez+st.+louis+road+uni.jpg


It's amazing. This phenotype is indeed spread far and wide. How much "G" in Iran? :)

freddie.jpg


Of course, my image of him is always like this. :)

freddie-live-099.jpg


Gay or not, I always thought he was very sexy.
 
Well the autosomal composition is (obviously) more important for the appearance of an individual, but if you are trying to look for some common appearance based on obscure parental lineages, then you won't find much luck (especially) with G2a since it is sort of a minority everywhere outside of modern day Georgia and hence the carriers would likely just resemble the general population that they are born into.
Most of those with I2 and G2 in the pictures come from Central and North Western Europe and less from the East. However, I2 and G2 have a long history of long-term coexistence from Neolithic until now in Europe, and you are right, autosomaly are probably very close now.

From these pictures, besides faces' expressions it seems to me, if not a coincidence, that G2 men has the lower part of the nose slightly wider, and more pronounced partial baldness appears in the front of the head.
About the difference between "aura" :) of the expression of the faces is more difficult to talk about.
 
Well the autosomal composition is (obviously) more important for the appearance of an individual, but if you are trying to look for some common appearance based on obscure parental lineages, then you won't find much luck (especially) with G2a since it is sort of a minority everywhere outside of modern day Georgia and hence the carriers would likely just resemble the general population that they are born into.

Completely agree.

I hope people aren't taking this too seriously.
 
Most of those with I2 and G2 in the pictures come from Central and North Western Europe and less from the East. However, I2 and G2 have a long history of long-term coexistence from Neolithic until now in Europe, and you are right, autosomaly are probably very close now.
From these pictures, besides faces' expressions it seems to me, if not a coincidence, that G2 men has the lower part of the nose slightly wider, and more pronounced partial baldness appears in the front of the head.
About the difference between "aura" :) of the expression of the faces is more difficult to talk about.
Gidai, having a wider nose - or whatever - would mean having the so-called "aura", no? Or even much more than that. Well, I have relatives in male line whose noses are slim (not sure this is the word), and I'm myself a G-P303 like you (more specifically, G-L497). It seems kind of an illusory correlation then.
But allow me a digression using, anecdotelly, two certain friends (real people, but it doesn't matter who they are) - and good ones, despite their differences. One of them, who had his brother tested, is kind of fragile, cubbish and relatively short. He's what some people would call a "nerd", even if he's not such thing. The other one, also tested, is quite the opposite. Now, if you call someone to guess which haplogroup belongs to each one, the answer would be wrong more likely, given the cognitive biases. The "fragile" one descends in paternal line from the "Conans" - not an irony; just an exageration that serves the point - who founded (or dominated, if you prefer) roughly half of Europe. It represents both how stereotypes work and how autosomal as a whole, with its millions of polimorphisms, seems far more important than some mutations that defines Y hgs in general. Yeah, I know it's evident, especially putting this way, but that was my intention: stating the obvious, as aleph did above. Anyway, I use those guys as example because they're the only ones I know outside internet whose Y-DNAs were (in)directly tested (sure, the result could be extended to their relatives in male line), together with another family's, according to a match in 23andMe. The men in this another family would belong to a widespread haplogroup that someone called "the beast". Naturally, these men fluctuate from the "macho Malboro cowboy" style to the somewhat effeminate type, not to mention all physical differences and other kind of gradients. Easy to know why. It just came to my mind that story about an ant (representing a haplogroup here?) on the back of an elephant (autosomal?) running. The ant then said: hey, see how we make the dust fly! Lol
You could torture images till they confess some pattern, but come on! The huge differences, on the other hand, really scream. This is the only clear thing here. ;)
This should be enough, really, but as they say: "there are too many variables involved to make any meaningful conclusion". So let's keep the mind opened and try to understand it with the possible clues we have so far.

What is not so obvious is the absence of any minor influence at all, even virtually undetectable. Point is that this hypothetical minor influence of older "haplogroups" (not necessarily just macro-haplogroups) over phenotype, aside environmental factors, would likely belong to the ground of "big numbers"; it would be a big sampling issue. I.e., given a certain context, they could perhaps make a slight difference in averages, but they would be almost absolutely overshadowed by autosomal in the individual level, making virtually impossible to classify someone based on this supposed "aura". Again: this detectable aura wouldn't exist in practice, due to a huge overlapping imposed by Autosomal. So their influence would be comparatively (very) low, whereas autosomal's would be (very) high, hence the huge overlapping. If you allow me silly examples, never mind if a Y haplogroup would make, say, your nose 1 mm longer, or your aggressiveness 1 mm longer, he he he, or your sperm count jump from 100 to 110 million, if your autosomal can make much more than that. Unless you really believe that mutations related to this kind of haplogroups may equal autosomal or even surpass it in some really relevant ways, but the clues are against this hypothesis, apparently. We'd need more research, but additional mutations in subgroups could occasionaly make it more difficult to be done.

Obviously Y chromosome per se is pretty important, after all it makes us men, not to mention the role of certain mutations in health. Plus, that's what, say, the diffefence between liger and tigon suggests. However, lions and tigers are different species sepparated by millions of years, while some macro-haplogroups are sepparated by just ~30k years. Additionally, it's not only the Y chromosome that is different from each other (in liger and tigon), but also another whole recombined one: the X.
So, imo the role of haplogroups is possibly a bit overestimated by some people, either over phenotype or over their own expansion/reduction in frequency. This would be another related discussion. Perhaps they matter for frequency in the long term to a certain extent, but important populational changes in the past happened suddenly, as we know, and it looks like an exagerarion assign them to haplogroups. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Where would Occam razor point to? Lucky (in broad sense) and/or autosomal to some extent could explain "successes" more likely, it seems, even if not all the time (exceptions might confirm the rule)? Context matters*. Indeed, an haplogroup which are very common in certain places may be for some reason uncommon in other places, even in those where it has a relatively long presence. And frequent haplogroups may have sister clades that are not common at all. There was no "equality" between subclades, at least till not much time ago. Plus, most of haplogroups which are very common today suffered severe bottlenecks and flirted with extinction (sometimes with "competition" between their own carrying men, other times also with others - which would matter more in this discussion), like the one we were talking about: I1 (among many others, of course, and not that just competition explains it). Between more than 20k and 5k years ago, just one I1 man in each generation left patrilineal descendants living today. Take out one of them and bye bye the I1 as we know it now. How many lines were extinct since the time of the most recent common ancestor of all living men? Hard to guess. Perhaps "the best" (whatever it means) went extinct, he he he. Who knows! :) Apparently, at least till few thousands of years ago, it was kind of a lottery. You know, in lotteries, the chances a certain specific person will take the prize are low, but the chances some lucky bastard will take it are high. ;)

(Haplogroups would be kind of abstractions; in certain sense, they don't live and die: people carrying the related mutations do. But you got what I meant in all this talking, je je je.)

Finally, not to say I don't care about haplogroups. I do. I've my intellectual curiosities in this regard, and populational genetics provides me some fun. :)

*See how Italy became more vulnerable due to its internal divisions, which may have impacted its Y-DNA pool in certain areas, or how some Middle Eastern hgs will grow in frequency in Europe due to higher fertility of immigrants, or consider the mere "will to kill", when a nation or group of people do have the ways to decimate other group, and they do it or don't do it depending on diverse circumstances... And on and on. The examples multiply.

Conclusion is: assigning this to hgs seems a too simplistic solution for a too complex reality. Angela is right. This shouldn't be taken too seriously. I just decided to give the issue some thought, 'cause it shows up here from time to time. My two cents, and I'm done! :)

ED: just a little correction.
 
Last edited:
I've been on a "Queen", Freddie Mercury listening binge, and it finally occurred to me that his phenotype fits in too.

He was a Parsi from India, although I don't personally see any Indian in him. Instead, he looks very Caucasus like to me, which makes sense since they originated in Iran. Interestingly, before looking him up I always thought he was of European descent of some sort, just always with a tan. :) Compare him to Keith Hernandez who is half Spanish and half Scots Irish.

keith+hernandez+st.+louis+road+uni.jpg


It's amazing. This phenotype is indeed spread far and wide. How much "G" in Iran? :)

freddie.jpg


Of course, my image of him is always like this. :)

freddie-live-099.jpg


Gay or not, I always thought he was very sexy.
It looks a good example. He does have this looking, and we know G-M201 is relatively common in Caucasus, especially in North Ossetia (~70%), South Ossetia, Circassia, Georgia... Whereas it's not common outside.

Well the autosomal composition is (obviously) more important for the appearance of an individual, but if you are trying to look for some common appearance based on obscure parental lineages, then you won't find much luck (especially) with G2a since it is sort of a minority everywhere outside of modern day Georgia and hence the carriers would likely just resemble the general population that they are born into.
I tend to agree, except that even a low % over a big number means lots of people for comparison.
 
Just for curiosity's sake, I looked up the genetics of the Zoroastrian Iranians:


"Furthermore, a recent study using genome-wide autosomal DNA found that haplotype patterns in Iranian Zoroastrians matched more than other modern Iranian groups to a high-coverage early Neolithic farmer genome from Iran.12"






Parsis seem to be from about 64%-76% Iranian, which explains his looks. Interestingly, I saw a picture of his mother and she looks very Indian.




In terms of yDna, lots and lots of J, which I assume is J2.





3aEnLiK.png


https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0002929717302914-mmc1.pdf












 
Gidai, having a wider nose - or whatever - would mean having the so-called "aura", no? Or even much more than that. Well, I have relatives in male line whose noses are slim (not sure this is the word), and I'm myself a G-P303 like you (more specifically, G-L497). It seems kind of an illusory correlation then.
But allow me a digression using, anedoctelly, two certain friends (real people, but it doesn't matter who they are) - and good ones, despite their differences. One of them, who had his brother tested, is kind of fragile, cubbish and relatively short. He's what some people would call a "nerd", even if he's not such thing. The other one, also tested, is quite the opposite. Now, if you call someone to guess which haplogroup belongs to each one, the answer would be wrong more likely, given the cognitive biases. The "fragile" one descends in paternal line from the "Conans" - not an irony; just an exageration that serves the point - who founded (or dominated, if you prefer) roughly half of Europe. It represents both how stereotypes work and how autosomal as a whole, with its millions of polimorphisms, seems far more important than some mutations that defines Y hgs in general. Yeah, I know it's evident, especially putting this way, but that was my intention: stating the obvious, as aleph did above. Anyway, I use those guys as example because they're the only ones I know outside internet whose Y-DNAs were (in)directly tested (sure, the result could be extended to their relatives in male line), together with another family's, according to a match in 23andMe. The men in this another family would belong to a widespread haplogroup that someone called "the beast". Naturally, these men fluctuate from the "macho Malboro cowboy" style to the somewhat effeminate type, not to mention all physical differences and other kind of gradients. Easy to know why. It just came to my mind that story about an ant (representing a haplogroup here?) on the back of an elephant (autosomal?) running. The ant then said: hey, see how we make the dust fly! Lol
You could torture images till they confess some pattern, but come on! The huge differences, on the other hand, really scream. This is the only clear thing here. ;)
This should be enough, really, but as they say: "there are too many variables involved to make any meaningful conclusion". So let's keep the mind opened and try to understand it with the possible clues we have so far.
What is not so obvious is the absence of any minor influence at all, even virtually undetectable. Point is that this hypothetical minor influence of older "haplogroups" (not necessarily just macro-haplogroups) over phenotype, aside environmental factors, would likely belong to the ground of "big numbers"; it would be a big sampling issue. I.e., given a certain context, they could perhaps make a slight difference in averages, but they would be almost absolutely overshadowed by autosomal in the individual level, making virtually impossible to classify someone based on this supposed "aura". Again: this detectable aura wouldn't exist in practice, due to a huge overlapping imposed by Autosomal. So their influence would be comparatively (very) low, whereas autosomal's would be (very) high, hence the huge overlapping. If you allow me silly examples, never mind if a Y haplogroup would make, say, your nose 1 mm longer, or your aggressiveness 1 mm longer, he he he, or your sperm count jump from 100 to 110 million, if your autosomal can make much more than that. Unless you really believe that mutations related to this kind of haplogroups may equal autosomal or even surpass it in some really relevant ways, but the clues are against this hypothesis, apparently. We'd need more research, but additional mutations in subgroups could occasionaly make it more difficult to be done.
Obviously Y chromosome per se is pretty important, after all it makes us men, not to mention the role of certain mutations in health. Plus, that's what, say, the diffefence between liger and tigon suggests. However, lions and tigers are different species sepparated by millions of years, while some macro-haplogroups are sepparated by just ~30k years. Additionally, it's not only the Y chromosome that is different from each other (in liger and tigon), but also another whole recombined one: the X.
So, imo the role of haplogroups is possibly a bit overestimated by some people, either over phenotype or over their own expansion/reduction in frequency. This would be another related discussion. Perhaps they matter for frequency in the long term to a certain extent, but important populational changes in the past happened suddenly, as we know, and it looks like an exagerarion assign them to haplogroups. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Where would Occam razor point to? Lucky (in broad sense) and/or autosomal to some extent could explain "successes" more likely, it seems, even if not all the time (exceptions might confirm the rule)? Context matters*. Indeed, an haplogroup which are very common in certain places may be for some reason uncommon in other places, even in those where it has a relatively long presence. And frequent haplogroups may have sister clades that are not common at all. There was no "equality" between subclades, at least till not much time ago. Plus, most of haplogroups which are very common today suffered severe bottlenecks and flirted with extinction (sometimes with "competition" between their own carrying men, other times also with others - which would matter more in this discussion), like the one we were talking about: I1 (among many others, of course, and not that just competition explains it). Between more than 20k and 5k years ago, just one I1 man in each generation left patrilineal descendants living today. Take out one of them and bye bye the I1 as we know it now. How many lines were extinct since the time of the most recent common ancestor of all living men? Hard to guess. Perhaps "the best" (whatever it means) went extinct, he he he. Who knows! :) Apparently, at least till few thousands of years ago, it was kind of a lottery. You know, in lotteries, the chances a certain specific person will take the prize are low, but the chances some lucky bastard will take it are high. ;)
(Haplogroups would be kind of abstractions; in certain sense, they don't live and die: people carrying the related mutations do. But you got what I meant in all this talking, je je je.)
Finally, not to say I don't care about haplogroups. I do. I've my intellectual curiosities in this regard, and genetic genealogy provides me some fun. :)
*See how Italy became more vulnerable due to its internal divisions, which may have impacted its Y-DNA pool in certain areas, or how some Middle Eastern hgs will grow in frequency in Europe due to higher fertility of immigrants, or consider the mere "will to kill", when a nation or group of people do have the ways to decimate other group, and they do it or don't do it depending on diverse circumstances... And on and on. The examples multiply.
Conclusion is: assigning this to hgs seems a too simplistic solution for a too complex reality. Angela is right. This shouldn't be taken too seriously. I just decided to give the issue some thought, 'cause it shows up here from time to time. My two cents, and I'm done! :)
Thanks for your wonderful examples! I understand what you say.
Indeed, the autosomal part speaks its word first. But also the different living environment. So it is very difficult to filter the differences that may result from the influences of different haplogroups.
 
Thanks for your wonderful examples! I understand what you say.
Indeed, the autosomal part speaks its word first. But also the different living environment. So it is very difficult to filter the differences that may result from the influences of different haplogroups.
I'm glad they helped.
I was thinking, that one on Italy is a bit off, but ok. The influence to which I referred happened too early, so the example doesn't make much sense. Anyway, the point was to show the importance of casual events and contexts in general. There would be a big menu. Just use the imagination.

@Angela
So the odds are he was J2, also common in Caucasus. But G2 is not exactly common in Iran. :)
 
I'm glad they helped.
I was thinking, that one on Italy is a bit off, but ok. The influence to which I referred happened too early, so the example doesn't make much sense. Anyway, the point was to show the importance of casual events and contexts in general. There would be a big menu. Just use the imagination.

@Angela

So the odds are he was J2, also common in Caucasus. But G2 is not exactly common in Iran. :)

My point exactly. It's a Caucasus/Iranian type look, not specifically a G2a look, although my husband is G2a and has a bit of it.

It's complicated. :)

I was struck by the fact that the Iranian Zoroastrians are the closest to the pretty old Iran Neo sample.

It's a look definitely there among the Georgians, reduced and feminized among the women.
amazing-georgian-traditional-dance-af301eddefa88fe79339154b4e4938f7.jpg


Stalin:
Stalin_1902.jpg
 
As Maciamo suggests here, a study of clones but with different Y-DNA corresponding to different haplogroups could clarify if/what the differences are. Clones would be good because they would eliminate the variability caused by different autosomal DNA. Genetic engineering stuff.
 
As Maciamo suggests here, a study of clones but with different Y-DNA corresponding to different haplogroups could clarify if/what the differences are. Clones would be good because they would eliminate the variability caused by different autosomal DNA. Genetic engineering stuff.
Even twins are not really equal, and environmental factors could be somewhat misleading here, unless the differences turned out to be substancial, which would be unlikely imo. Anyway, it would be a good test.

Not directly related, so off-topic, but it's worth to mention epigenetics as well. Its influence has been discussed. Some related articles, out of curiosity:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...assed-down-for-14-generations-most-animal/amp
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170717100548.htm
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/320
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41556-018-0242-9

My point exactly. It's a Caucasus/Iranian type look, not specifically a G2a look, although my husband is G2a and has a bit of it.

It's complicated. :)

I was struck by the fact that the Iranian Zoroastrians are the closest to the pretty old Iran Neo sample.

It's a look definitely there among the Georgians, reduced and feminized among the women.
amazing-georgian-traditional-dance-af301eddefa88fe79339154b4e4938f7.jpg


Stalin:
Stalin_1902.jpg
I confess I didn't know about his Iranian origin. I thought he was Indian in ancestry. And I didn't know Zoroastrians are the most Iran Neo in the world. Interesting!
I myself seem to have some extra-Iran Neo compared to other NE Italians, but I think I'm pretty different from Iranians and people related. Perhaps the deep-set eyes (how do you call it when the eyes seem to be inside a cave? lol)? I don't know if this trait would be related more closely to the people in Caucasus though.
I used to think I resembled a bit Christian Vieri based on soccer games I've watched time ago, but I just saw some pictures again and nah. Not so similar. :)

How old was Stalin in that picture? Very different from his older version.
Stalin_in_July_1941.jpg


In this picture he seems closer to his young version:
GettyImages-541038943.0.jpg
 
Georgian here, Freddy looks nothing like a Georgian. If I saw him in the street I'd think he was an Iranian tourist. G2a has a huge percentage among western Georgians but is very low in eastern Georgians, so you'll need to look at "Svans" who are oldest and least mixed of G2a groups here, which means both men and women would carry the "closest to original" G2a look. And here's the pic of the oldest Svan man available from 1800s
Old_peasant_with_dagger_and_long_smoking_pipe%2C_Mestia%2C_Svanetia%2C_Georgia_%28Republic%29.Color.jpg

Looks to me like Bryan Cranston tbh.
 
Even twins are not really equal, and environmental factors could be somewhat misleading here, unless the differences turned out to be substancial, which would be unlikely imo. Anyway, it would be a good test.

Not directly related, so off-topic, but it's worth to mention epigenetics as well. Its influence has been discussed. Some related articles, out of curiosity:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...assed-down-for-14-generations-most-animal/amp
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170717100548.htm
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/320
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41556-018-0242-9

I confess I didn't know about his Iranian origin. I thought he was Indian in ancestry. And I didn't know Zoroastrians are the most Iran Neo in the world. Interesting!
I myself seem to have some extra-Iran Neo compared to other NE Italians, but I think I'm pretty different from Iranians and people related. Perhaps the deep-set eyes (how do you call it when the eyes seem to be inside a cave? lol)? I don't know if this trait would be related more closely to the people in Caucasus though.
I used to think I resembled a bit Christian Vieri based on soccer games I've watched time ago, but I just saw some pictures again and nah. Not so similar. :)

How old was Stalin in that picture? Very different from his older version.
Stalin_in_July_1941.jpg


In this picture he seems closer to his young version:
GettyImages-541038943.0.jpg

He was 22, a "young revolutionary". He looks it. Of course, he was probably already spying for the secret police by then. He was both a sociopath and psychopath imo. Every country has their share.

search

da29572f137959ed5fa4898f71320b30.jpg


Quite fetching when young, not so much so when older...

I think with age and more weight, the jaw line becomes much more pronounced, and the face wider? It happened to Freddy too.

It's interesting how certain groups really have a limited "range" in terms of phenotype. It's so different from Italians.

The Parsis are a really interesting group. Amazing how India seems to lend itself to endogamy in every group.

Some other Indian Parsis:

The great Zubin Mehta:
zubin-mehta-indian-parsi-conductor-of-western-classical-music-in-new-picture-id481630747


He looks more Indian in old age.

John Abraham-actor
597099-john-abraham-073117.jpg
 
Gyllenhaal does look like a typical Georgian too. In fact I have a friend that looks like his mirror image.
 
I do not believe that Y-Dna is main characteristic of phenotype,
some effects due to some ormones etc maybe,
but I do not think that Y-DNA affects or determines phenotype marks
anyway,

I am G2a,
and most friends say I look like him,
with mark of chin and the chin looking down, not infront

el_indio.jpg



make it brown eyes hairs,

cf84cf85cf87cebfceb4ceb9cf8ecebacf84ceb5cf82-cf84ceb7cf82-cebacebfcebbceaccf83ceb5cf89cf82.jpg
 
Anyway, it would be a good test.
Apart the ethical matter, of course.

Georgian here, Freddy looks nothing like a Georgian. If I saw him in the street I'd think he was an Iranian tourist. G2a has a huge percentage among western Georgians but is very low in eastern Georgians, so you'll need to look at "Svans" who are oldest and least mixed of G2a groups here, which means both men and women would carry the "closest to original" G2a look. And here's the pic of the oldest Svan man available from 1800s
Old_peasant_with_dagger_and_long_smoking_pipe%2C_Mestia%2C_Svanetia%2C_Georgia_%28Republic%29.Color.jpg

Looks to me like Bryan Cranston tbh.
Yeah, the Western Caucasus is heavier in G-M201. Adygean perhaps has even more than Svans/Abkhazians? Btw, would be G2a1 more common in Georgia and G2a2 in NW? What's yours, if I may ask?

He was 22, a "young revolutionary". He looks it. Of course, he was probably already spying for the secret police by then. He was both a sociopath and psychopath imo. Every country has their share.
search

da29572f137959ed5fa4898f71320b30.jpg

Quite fetching when young, not so much so when older...
I think with age and more weight, the jaw line becomes much more pronounced, and the face wider? It happened to Freddy too.
It's interesting how certain groups really have a limited "range" in terms of phenotype. It's so different from Italians.
The Parsis are a really interesting group. Amazing how India seems to lend itself to endogamy in every group.
Some other Indian Parsis:
The great Zubin Mehta:
zubin-mehta-indian-parsi-conductor-of-western-classical-music-in-new-picture-id481630747

He looks more Indian in old age.
John Abraham-actor
597099-john-abraham-073117.jpg
Thanks.
Yeah, probably a psycho (which would make him a sociopath too).

It's really amazing the variation in Italy, sometimes even in the same region. I think my paternal family is pretty different from my maternal family, for example. The former tend to be tall, black haired and brown eyed (inheritance of my father's paternal grandparents mainly), while the maternal are shorter and more Northern shifted (some of them even exaggeratedly, as an uncle): light haired and light eyed. I'm not knowledgeble in this matter, but I'd risk to say my paternal family is more shifted to (South) Balkan in looking? The maternal, on the other hand, more shifted to Austria/S. Germany? Both father and mother virtually full Venetians in ancestry, with a father's paternal grandmother being the exception, from Mantova province.

I do not believe that Y-Dna is main characteristic of phenotype,
some effects due to some ormones etc maybe,
but I do not think that Y-DNA affects or determines phenotype marks
anyway,
I am G2a,
and most friends say I look like him,
with mark of chin and the chin looking down, not infront
el_indio.jpg

make it brown eyes hairs,
cf84cf85cf87cebfceb4ceb9cf8ecebacf84ceb5cf82-cf84ceb7cf82-cebacebfcebbceaccf83ceb5cf89cf82.jpg
Hey, I remember him. I've watched Per Un Pugno di Dollari and Per Qualche Dollaro in Più - great Morricone, great Leone! :) I see he acted also in L'armata Brancaleone, but I confess I don't remember him in this one.

ED: little correction.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 57137 times.

Back
Top