Guess my racial background

[Its me]

Haha. It's actually my first cousin on my mothers side. I'm not going to go to deep into my strange family, my aunt cut the ties with the rest of the family 40 years ago, but I know my cousin, her daughter, went to the American College in Athens and met an American-Greek in school and they got married. To be honest I don't know if they still live in Athens or outside. They probably have kids and everything but I don't know since we haven't spoken or met since the late 80s.

After 1000 years you would definitely look different. And it's almost purely environmental. I heard an excellent show on the radio just a few weeks ago about this. The topic was a minority people called Sami. Sami are a minority people that live all the way north in Sweden, Norway and Finland. We call them indigenous people and they all had (today many have mixed) black hair and brown eyes. Since there's a lot of information you could read on Wikipedia and other sources I won't dig to deep. But the conclusion was that they ate almost only fish which has a lot of vitamin B12 so they didn't change their appearance that much. On the other hand Sami that lived much more to the south ate less fish and more animal meat and their phenotype changed to being lighter, blue eyes etc. I think there's a lot more people with better knowledge than me on this forum that knows much better how environment can change peoples "colours". We change over time, depending on a lot of factors, food, weather etc.

Sent from my SM-T870 using Tapatalk

Well 40 years ago i didnt even exist :P Ive got family members that have been lost or changed through time so yea i totally understand you.

They were lighter purely due to a diet change ? Wow thats a first.In general i didnt come here just to get "categorized" but also to learn and hear other peoples opinions thats why im making so many questions.

[Angela]

It is amazing to me that someone obsessing about his "racial" background can generate 75 posts.

Each to their own, I guess.

[MOESAN]

For example, one European and one Asian could make 10 European/Asian (50/50) mixed children. Some would look purely Asian or purely European, and some of a mixed phenotype in between both.

Eye shape differences are mainly a few genes. Plus let's say 3 kids have blue eyes (2 main genes OCA2 and HERC2) whereas the rest have brown.

Thus, 3 kids born with European eye shape and color, perhaps from random genetic luck or unknown environmental reactions(maybe the mother has lower vitamin d levels that then favours genes for less melanin as biological adaptations) could pass as European looking despite being half Asian genetically, while his brothers pass as Asian since they inherited those few eye shape/color genes from the Asian side instead of European, though are half European.

So, despite being 99.99% genetically similar siblings, that 0.001% difference in a few key genes in the eye area makes them look very different, the difference between Russian or Korean, perhaps.

Phenotype-genotype correlations can be an indicator at times, but can also be extremely misleading and downright incorrect at other times. It depends.

Let's ne precise. NO, at the first generation, it doesn't work like this: for some traits (often hair and eyes pigmentation and some other traits), some gentically dominant aspects worn by a 'side' would pass to first generation children, when the most of other traits will pass fifty-fifty to this same generation; it's only after that begin the hazardous redistribution of traits, with maybe what could appear as a partial lost of dominance for some of these traits.

[MOESAN]

It is amazing to me that someone obsessing about his "racial" background can generate 75 posts.

Each to their own, I guess.

It may be interesting if it stays a guessing game, without too much personal implication.
It's why I don't took part too often.

[Its me]

It is amazing to me that someone obsessing about his "racial" background can generate 75 posts.

Each to their own, I guess.

Obsessing ? Were just having some casual talk and being friendly to each other thats not obsession.This is a forum after all and its purpose is for people to have a conversation.Of course i have plenty of questions when it comes to talking about this matter and topic and the thread keeps somewhat going,since youre the only outlet i have to suffice my curiocity.I use your opinions as peer reviews because i consider you folks experts in these topics.

[Its me]

Deleted comment

[Mordred]

Well 40 years ago i didnt even exist Ive got family members that have been lost or changed through time so yea i totally understand you.

They were lighter purely due to a diet change ? Wow thats a first.In general i didnt come here just to get "categorized" but also to learn and hear other peoples opinions thats why im making so many questions.

Sorry being late, I didn't see your post until now.

Yes diet, or let's say lack of certain food stuffs would in a long run change your appearance. It's well known we are for example taller than 100 years ago. That's a whole other science though. But it's definitely interesting with the Sami experiment. I will trying to find the article.

I agree we just chill here and I don't feel anyone being obsessed about anything, you seem generally interested, that's all.

Cheers

Sent from my SM-T870 using Tapatalk

[Its me]

Sorry being late, I didn't see your post until now.

Yes diet, or let's say lack of certain food stuffs would in a long run change your appearance. It's well known we are for example taller than 100 years ago. That's a whole other science though. But it's definitely interesting with the Sami experiment. I will trying to find the article.

I agree we just chill here and I don't feel anyone being obsessed about anything, you seem generally interested, that's all.

Cheers

Sent from my SM-T870 using Tapatalk

I believe that were mostly getting taller because were eating a lot more than our ancestors did but i may be wrong

[firetown]

I believe that were mostly getting taller because were eating a lot more than our ancestors did but i may be wrong

I would say that whenever there are food shortages, shorter people in need of less food might do better and pass on their genes more likely than those taller and malnourished to the degree they are getting sicker.

[MOESAN]

I would say that whenever there are food shortages, shorter people in need of less food might do better and pass on their genes more likely than those taller and malnourished to the degree they are getting sicker.

It occurred more than a time and in Brittany we had a Mesolothical pop which a lot of traits inherited from 'croma' (1m74) but who finished at a mean of height of only 1m55/58, spite being still "robust" in aspect. Very often this correspond sto some shortage.
BTW, if not irectly linked to this, it seems big persons are more exposed to different kinds of cancer, and in the rugby word, very often, the tallest men (forwards of the pack) die younger than the smallest (backwards, who had in ancient times more hard contact because defending more often on full speed opponents); I speak here of ancient rugby, now they are some limited doping and a lot of contacts at every level of the squad - and this deserves more studies, because an psychologic aspect could have been in play, with strong people having more risky deportments concerning health (and too much red meat to eat), maybe some selfconfidence?

But the causes are multi origins; otherwise, the very big guys have sometimes anomalies (a supplementary vertebra, a supplementary kidney ASO...) - but here we are in front of peculiar cases, with some glandular disorders, and why not too much "hormones of croissance"? these hormones are suspected in the cases of cancer.

[Its me]

I would say that whenever there are food shortages, shorter people in need of less food might do better and pass on their genes more likely than those taller and malnourished to the degree they are getting sicker.

I mostly agree with this.The human body manages to adapt to almost anything though.I remember watching a documentary talking about some sever food shortages at some place in the Baltic countries or Scandinavia at some point in ww2 that led to many people dying but the next generations birthed from the survivors were reported having naturally undergone a mutation that allowed them to survive with less food.I think they had bigger hearts or something.In modern times theres abundance of food so theres always extra material that organisms can use to grow,back then not so much

[Its me]

It occurred more than a time and in Brittany we had a Mesolothical pop which a lot of traits inherited from 'croma' (1m74) but who finished at a mean of height of only 1m55/58, spite being still "robust" in aspect. Very often this correspond sto some shortage.
BTW, if not irectly linked to this, it seems big persons are more exposed to different kinds of cancer, and in the rugby word, very often, the tallest men (forwards of the pack) die younger than the smallest (backwards, who had in ancient times more hard contact because defending more often on full speed opponents); I speak here of ancient rugby, now they are some limited doping and a lot of contacts at every level of the squad - and this deserves more studies, because an psychologic aspect could have been in play, with strong people having more risky deportments concerning health (and too much red meat to eat), maybe some selfconfidence?

But the causes are multi origins; otherwise, the very big guys have sometimes anomalies (a supplementary vertebra, a supplementary kidney ASO...) - but here we are in front of peculiar cases, with some glandular disorders, and why not too much "hormones of croissance"? these hormones are suspected in the cases of cancer.

What do you mean with multi origins ?