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

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.
 
Anthro-inclined said:
a gene doesn't just mutate for the sake of it
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LeBrok said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LeBrok said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Maciamo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Maciamo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I got a chuckle out of this Maciamo, I too think R1b dominant cultures are far less aggressive than those found in say the Middle East or Africa.

And Anthro-inclined, Lebrok is correct on his description of y-DNA (or really any type of DNA) mutations. It's a blind, random process... but one that can nevertheless provide real benefits from time to time. I don't think R1b is a hyper-aggressive lineage. I think it's a rational, calm line compared to others. Maybe this is it's mutational advantage.

It's allowed R1b cultures to build societies that allow those seeking warfare to find it, while leaving an inner core to "pollinate" flowers left unattended. Large populations favor efficient systems and networks over individual brute strength.

But Lebrok, the thing about us building our own DNA hospitals, don't you think this is a process better left to nature?
 
nordicfoyer said:
I got a chuckle out of this Maciamo, I too think R1b dominant cultures are far less aggressive than those found in say the Middle East or Africa.
Click to expand...

Now yes, because Western societies are richer, more educated, and enjoy a period of unprecedented peace. Look at the last 2000 years and reconsider.
 
For those who doubt that Y-DNA has an influence on male fertility, sperm count, and gender bias, please refer to this post.
 
Maciamo said:
I don't think you read the data properly. All countries have more boys than girls at birth. Western societies have more females because women live longer than men. That's all.
Click to expand...

All do have more boys on birth.
But in the top 5 are Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
 
Last edited:
Maciamo said:
Now yes, because Western societies are richer, more educated, and enjoy a period of unprecedented peace. Look at the last 2000 years and reconsider.
Click to expand...

I have considered the past and present. Still hold the same opinion.

R1b's number advantage is tied to it's structuring. Look to French and Scottish societies, or even the U.S. in it's earlier days (after the Revolutionary War). This haplogroup is hyper-efficient when viewed through the lense of genetic success.

But I don't want you to think I am paying R1b too big of a compliment, I1 heavy societies have performed well also. If R1b has evolved the "rational" gene, then I1 has evolved the "justice" gene. Is it coincidence that we have the terms:

Fair haired--describing light colored locks... then we have

Fair weather--describing favorable conditions
Fair treatment--describing equitable practices
Fair and balanced--describing Fox News

Ok, maybe the last one isn't a great example. But you catch my drift. Maybe rational thought thought and justice are attributes brought forth, or at least enhanced, by evolution.

Maybe we're locked in a race to see who can be the most decent human being--that would be kind of cool. Gives a new slant on the term genetic evolution.
 
Last edited:
Ivan said:
All do have more boys on birth.
But in the top 5 are Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. And number of those that did not survive the age of 65 is considerably higher than in West-Europe.
Click to expand...

Countries that have very strong gender biases at birth nowadays are usually those where artificial gender selection is practised (i.e. pregnancies are terminated when it's a girl because the parents want a boy). China is particularly well-known for that because of the single child policy and because boys have always been favoured traditionally. The importance of male offspring is such in Chinese culture that even richer Chinese, like in Singapore, HK and Taiwan, keep practising boy selection. It is also very common in India. I don't know about the Caucasus, but it seems to be the same.
 
Maciamo said:
Countries that have very strong gender biases at birth nowadays are usually those where artificial gender selection is practised (i.e. pregnancies are terminated when it's a girl because the parents want a boy). China is particularly well-known for that because of the single child policy and because boys have always been favoured traditionally. The importance of male offspring is such in Chinese culture that even richer Chinese, like in Singapore, HK and Taiwan, keep practising boy selection. It is also very common in India. I don't know about the Caucasus, but it seems to be the same.
Click to expand...

Yes one child policy exist in overpopulated China, where this claim makes sense. There is nothing though, that I know of, that could be similar in the Caucasus. They live normal lives like most of us, have regular hospitals and childbirths.
 
Ivan said:
Yes one child policy exist in overpopulated China, where this claim makes sense. There is nothing though, that I know of, that could be similar in the Caucasus. They live normal lives like most of us, have regular hospitals and childbirths.
Click to expand...

Same in India, and yet it happens.
 
Ivan said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective Ivan. We might say that I represent how R1b is arguing.
 
Maciamo said:
Countries that have very strong gender biases at birth nowadays are usually those where artificial gender selection is practised (i.e. pregnancies are terminated when it's a girl because the parents want a boy). China is particularly well-known for that because of the single child policy and because boys have always been favoured traditionally. The importance of male offspring is such in Chinese culture that even richer Chinese, like in Singapore, HK and Taiwan, keep practising boy selection. It is also very common in India. I don't know about the Caucasus, but it seems to be the same.
Click to expand...

This comment contradicts what you say previously on sex-ratio.
Are you only counting births of children only and not the conceived sex of children during pregnancies?,

since China and India practice termination of females, then this termination of females happens to a high percentage while the women is pregnant, these numbers HAVE to count in the sex-ratio of male and female or else the data we speak of is a farce and a manipulation of stats.

Since China and India's population is nearly a third of the world population, then stats for these areas can tilt the scales one way or the other
 
There was a male preference throughout history. Why recently the British monarchy wanted a change to have the first child born to be the monarch regardless of sex. Henry VIII had so many wives because he was seeking a male heir. Probably he had syphilis as so many of his babies died. Also the Sarmations sold their daughters to the highest bidder. In agricultural pastoral, nomadic hunter-gatherer societies males were tasked with dangerous,high-risk missions e.g. hunting for meat or climbing high trees for honey, fighting off invaders or predators, etc. Being stronger and bigger also allowed them to dominate. This is especially true with mammals but with reptiles, dinosaurs, insects it is the reverse. The biggest meanest theropod or tyrannosaurus rex was a female like the skeleton of the one in Chicago - a 40-foot ferocious female terror.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top