Genetic Compatibility

[Musso]

Do you believe in the concept of 'genetic compatibility'?

Here is an example. There is a half-Syrian, half-English person. Let's say for argument's sake he genetically clusters with Italians. In that, his ancestry composition for every component (West Med, N. Europe, etc.) averages out to give him a composition very similar to Italians. Now, this person is in no way related to Italians. He only has English and Syria blood. Yet he is closer to Italians than English or Syrians genetically speaking.

Would you say he is more 'genetically compatible' with Italians? For example, if he has a child with an Italian, that child would genetically cluster with Italians again, even though the child would technically be 1/2 Italian, 1/4 English, 1/4 Syrian. Who would be the most "genetically compatible" individual for this person. Is it a person from one of his own heritages (English or Syrian) or is it the people who have an ancestry composition most similar like his (Italians)?

Discuss...

[SkyBurn]

I would say that cultural mindset has a lot more to do with compatibility than genetics do.

[Musso]

I would say that cultural mindset has a lot more to do with compatibility than genetics do.

Of course, but let's say we take culture out of the picture in this scenario.

[cally]

What do you mean by genetically compatible?

[Kiyant]

Thats a really hard question since every human is unique and has another point of view to people of different ethnicies and race

[Raven_]

Genetically speaking, such person still is half English half Syrian which is easily detectable with variety of tools.

[Musso]

Thats a really hard question since every human is unique and has another point of view to people of different ethnicies and race

That is true, but how would you view this case with your own eyes? Is the half-Syrian, half-English more genetically compatible with Italians because he genetically clusters with them or with English or Syrians with whom he shares actual ancestry?


Genetically speaking, such person still is half English half Syrian which is easily detectable with variety of tools.

Of course, but his ancestry composition reflects Italians much more than English and Syrians.


What do you mean by genetically compatible?

I mean, genetically close with, for example, this person would genetically group/cluster with Italians...

[Kiyant]

That is true, but how would you view this case with your own eyes? Is the half-Syrian, half-English more genetically compatible with Italians because he genetically clusters with them or with English or Syrians with whom he shares actual ancestry?



Of course, but his ancestry composition reflects Italians much more than English and Syrians.



I mean, genetically close with, for example, this person would genetically group/cluster with Italians...

I think with English or Syrians since he would feel nearer to them even if he is genetically different

[Unome]

Studies on identical twins readily prove genetic compatibility.

On average, genetic likeness causes more cooperation and less competition.

[Insuperable]

That is why I say that southerners are not white from a racial point of view. From an ethnic point of view that person would still be half/half just as it is the same thing from a genetic point of view having IBS distances in consideration. From an "universal" point of view Italians themselves would still prefer an Icelandic person and feel more kinship with that person who would be genetically more distant from them than that English/Syrian person.

[Musso]

I think with English or Syrians since he would feel nearer to them even if he is genetically different

That's very probable, because in the end, he has had no contact with the Italians, though genetically he is technically most similar to them...


Studies on identical twins readily prove genetic compatibility.

On average, genetic likeness causes more cooperation and less competition.

So would that go for cooperation with English/Syrians or with Italians?


That is why I say that southerners are not white from a racial point of view. From an ethnic point of view that person would still be half/half just as it is the same thing from a genetic point of view having IBS distances in consideration. From an "universal" point of view Italians themselves would still prefer an Icelandic person which would be genetically more distant from them than that English/Syrian person.

That's true, but the Syrian/English person would be much closer genetically to the Italian than the Icelandic person. What I'm trying to gauge is if the Syrian/English person is more genetically compatible with Italians just because he cluster with them and has similar ancestry composition numbers or is closer to English/Syrian just because he has actual ancestry from the respective places. Furthermore, would it be more "genetically compatible" to reproduce with a Syrian/English or with an Italian?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Recessive genes only show up in groups that are sort of related. So if you married a calihari bush woman then they won't show up, and many of them are positive such as intelligence genes. People who are the most homogenous in genetics are the ones with the highest IQs.

[Kale]

OP - That mindset fails to take into account unique variants that arise in each population. Technically Irish and Italians are composed of the same components, albeit at different levels...but there are people that are distinctly Irish looking, and distinctly Italian looking.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Recessive genes only show up in groups that are sort of related. So if you married a calihari bush woman then they won't show up, and many of them are positive such as intelligence genes. People who are the most homogenous in genetics are the ones with the highest IQs.

It seems that isolated populations had more genetic drift & a tougher natural selection which weeded out the stupid people & was more favorable towards smart people with smart genetics.

But this does not mean that smart genetics are recessive.

While Mulattos score an intermediate IQ between Europeans & African Americans their IQ is a little closer to Europeans than to African Americans suggesting that these intelligence genes might be dominant traits.

[Musso]

OP - That mindset fails to take into account unique variants that arise in each population. Technically Irish and Italians are composed of the same components, albeit at different levels...but there are people that are distinctly Irish looking, and distinctly Italian looking.

True, looks vary among ethnic groups, that's a given, but I'm talking about genetically, and obviously we should look at 'genetic compatibility' in the context of reproduction. For example, if this half-Syrian/half-English person has a child with an Italian woman, will their child be more compatible with the couple as a whole? Or would a child with a Syrian or English partner be more compatible? Given the mixed person will genetically cluster with Italians, his child with the Italian should also strongly cluster with Italians, even though will have mixed ancestry.

[wvwvw]

Given the mixed person will genetically cluster with Italians, his child with the Italian should also strongly cluster with Italians, even though will have mixed ancestry.

Musso, a mixed person is highly unlikely to cluster with Italians, so your premise is wrong. Even a little bit more Northern African, Eastern European, Middle Eastern or Northern European that deviates from the Italian average is enough to pull you far away from Italians.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

It seems that isolated populations had more genetic drift & a tougher natural selection which weeded out the stupid people & was more favorable towards smart people with smart genetics.

But this does not mean that smart genetics are recessive.



No, they are. Studies don't show them going to exact middle. Studies show that they go to the average of each race, discarding any unique genetic advantages the other doesn't have.

So averages line up ok, the average case. However on high end, if 145 IQ illuminary marries 85 IQ afram, then you get an IQ in the 90s NOT an IQ of 115.

[Kale]

True, looks vary among ethnic groups, that's a given, but I'm talking about genetically, and obviously we should look at 'genetic compatibility' in the context of reproduction. For example, if this half-Syrian/half-English person has a child with an Italian woman, will their child be more compatible with the couple as a whole? Or would a child with a Syrian or English partner be more compatible? Given the mixed person will genetically cluster with Italians, his child with the Italian should also strongly cluster with Italians, even though will have mixed ancestry.

Compatible with what? Also it depends how far you break down the components. If you take a Mediterranean component, and break it down enough, you could get something crazy like North Atlantic, Iberian, Balkan, Levantine, and North African specific components. Who overlaps with what then?

[Musso]

Musso, a mixed person is highly unlikely to cluster with Italians, so your premise is wrong. Even a little bit more Northern African, Eastern European, Middle Eastern or Northern European that deviates from the Italian average is enough to pull you far away from Italians.

I understand, but I'm talking for argument's sake. If it's that hard to be in the Italian average why does 23andme give me 50% Italian, but I have no Italian ancestry at all?


Compatible with what? Also it depends how far you break down the components. If you take a Mediterranean component, and break it down enough, you could get something crazy like North Atlantic, Iberian, Balkan, Levantine, and North African specific components. Who overlaps with what then?

Well for argument sake, let's just say the person's genetic results are inputted into something like Eurogenes and it comes out that he genetically clusters the most with Italians.

[Kale]

I understand, but I'm talking for argument's sake. If it's that hard to be in the Italian average why does 23andme give me 50% Italian, but I have no Italian ancestry at all?



Well for argument sake, let's just say the person's genetic results are inputted into something like Eurogenes and it comes out that he genetically clusters the most with Italians.

So let's say we take an apple, throw it in a blender with a steak, and call the mixture a mushroom? Mushrooms are pretty much in-between apple and steak.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/





It is not quite incest. And though it will increase your chances of birthing a healthy baby, it is a bit unorthodox, to say the least. Still, scientists at Icelandic biotechnology company deCODE genetics say that when third and fourth cousins procreate, they generally have scads of kids and grandkids (relative to everyone else).

It has long been wondered exactly how kinship influences reproductive success. Previous studies have uncovered positive correlations, but the biological data has been clouded by socioeconomic factors (such as average marrying age and family size) in those populations in which consanguineous marriage is commonplace, such as in India, Pakistan and the Middle East. The new study, however, was able to shed light on the biological reason for the earlier findings.

Scientists came to their conclusions after studying the records of more than 160,000 Icelandic couples with members born between 1800 and 1965. "The advantage of using the Icelandic data set lies in this population being small and one of the most socioeconomically and culturally homogenous societies in the world," the researchers report in Science, "with little variation in family size [and] use of contraceptives and marriage practices, in contrast with most previously studied populations."

The results of the exhaustive study are constant throughout the generations analyzed. Women born between 1800 and 1824 who mated with a third cousin had significantly more children and grandchildren (4.04 and 9.17, respectively) than women who hooked up with someone no closer than an eighth cousin (3.34 and 7.31). Those proportions held up among women born more than a century later when couples were, on average, having fewer children.

Despite the general pattern for reproductive success favoring close kinship, couples that were second cousins or more closely related did not have as many children. The most likely reason, scientists say: offspring of such close relatives were likely to have much shorter life spans, because of the chance of inheriting harmful genetic mutations.

"With close inbreeding—between first cousins—there is a significant increase in the probability that both partners will share one or more detrimental recessive genes, leading to a 25 percent chance that these genes will be expressed in each pregnancy," says Alan Bittles, director of the Center for Human Genetics at Edith Cowan University in Joondalup, Australia, who was not involved in the study.

Interestingly, one evolutionary argument for mating with a relative is that it might reduce a woman's chance of having a miscarriage caused by immunological incompatibility between a mother and her child. Some individuals have an antigen (a protein that can launch an immune response) on the surface of their red blood cells called a rhesus factor—commonly abbreviated "Rh." In some cases—typically during a second pregnancy—when a woman gets pregnant, she and her fetus may have incompatible blood cells, which could trigger the mother's immune system to treat the fetus as a foreign intruder, causing a miscarriage. This occurrence is less probable if the parents are closely related, because their blood makeup is more likely to match.

"It may well be that the enhanced reproductive success observed in the Iceland study at the level of third [and] fourth cousins, who on average would be expected to have inherited 0.8 percent to 0.2 percent of their genes from a common ancestor," Bittles says, "represents this point of balance between the competing advantages and disadvantages of inbreeding and outbreeding."



Read this study a long time ago. Looks like the secret to a happy marriage is to marry 3rd cousin. So there is a certain level of relatedness that's ideal for maximum compatibility.

I believe it. I am probably more divergent than most from the main population of various triracials etc. and I just don't have any desire for any of them.

[Virtuous]

I would say that cultural mindset has a lot more to do with compatibility than genetics do.

Notwithstanding the fact however, that a culture arose from a people. So when a minority becomes a majority, it is most likely that the cultural status quo will shift. Genetics matter less for an individual, but do a lot when it comes to the critical mass.

[Ultra]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/



Read this study a long time ago. Looks like the secret to a happy marriage is to marry 3rd cousin. So there is a certain level of relatedness that's ideal for maximum compatibility.

I believe it. I am probably more divergent than most from the main population of various triracials etc. and I just don't have any desire for any of them.
Interesting. Makes sense also, but I must say I still find the thought of doing it rather repulsive.

[Ultra]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/



Read this study a long time ago. Looks like the secret to a happy marriage is to marry 3rd cousin. So there is a certain level of relatedness that's ideal for maximum compatibility.

I believe it. I am probably more divergent than most from the main population of various triracials etc. and I just don't have any desire for any of them.
Actually, third cousins are quite distantly related and it goes a long way back though so I dunno.. a lot of people probably are together and just don't know they are third cousins. Hell, even I could end up marrying one without me or her having a clue about it, it wouldn't be impossible, in a still relatively small country like Sweden(and her being ethnic Swedish).

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Actually, third cousins are quite distantly related and it goes a long way back though so I dunno.. a lot of people probably are together and just don't know they are third cousins. Hell, even I could end up marrying one without me or her having a clue about it, it wouldn't be impossible, in a still relatively small country like Sweden(and her being ethnic Swedish).

Yeah, it is very distant relation. Probably 100 years ago, everyone in your town was at least 3rd or 4th cousin, and most of the country 4th or 5th, aside from some passing gypsies and yehudrists.

[Ultra]

Yeah, it is very distant relation. Probably 100 years ago, everyone in your town was at least 3rd or 4th cousin, and most of the country 4th or 5th, aside from some passing gypsies and yehudrists.
Indeed, very true.

[Gaston]

Recent mixes almost never cluster with old populations so the example is not only inaccurate (to cluster with Italians, you have to have overwhelmingly peninsular ancestry, even ancestry from neighboring Sardinia or European countries makes someone an outlier) per se but the argument is not relevant either.


I thought this thread would be about histocompatibility, but it isn't.

[Ianus]

Would you say he is more 'genetically compatible' with Italians? For example, if he has a child with an Italian, that child would genetically cluster with Italians again, even though the child would technically be 1/2 Italian, 1/4 English, 1/4 Syrian. Who would be the most "genetically compatible" individual for this person. Is it a person from one of his own heritages (English or Syrian) or is it the people who have an ancestry composition most similar like his (Italians)?

http://cdn.funnie.st/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/539974_303885846368238_1455014827_n.jpg

[Musso]

@Ianus, hahaha, but I think my question is a legitimate one.

Which person is closer to ethnic group A.

Person A who is 50% ethnic group A
or
Person B who doesn't have any ancestry from ethnic group A, but genetically clusters with ethnic group A.

[Neon Knight]

I think it is a good question - scientific and philosophical. And I think the answer depends upon whether the Syrian and English genetic components were expressed in the phenotype as a clumped mix of English and Syrian features or as a very finely blended mixture. The former would make an English/Syrian 'hybrid' whereas the latter would make an Italian. My friend's son is half British, half Filipino. If his Western and Eastern genes were blended then he would look like an Afghan and be typical of an Afghan in various biological ways, but he looks quite Oriental and I would bet his bio-features are a 'here and there' mix of British and Filipino. I would also bet that his best reproductive match would be either a Briton or a Filipino depending on the exact genes inherited.

That is just my amateur opinion :)

[Musso]

I would also bet that his best reproductive match would be either a Briton or a Filipino depending on the exact genes inherited.

That is just my amateur opinion :)

That's pretty much what I'm asking. Is such a 'reproductive match' based on what ethnic group you cluster with, meaning your ancestry composition averages out to a given ethnic group, or is solely based on the ethnic groups from which you actually have ancestry.

In this question we are taking away the element of culture of course. Purely genetics.