Phenotype vs Genotype

[Curtis24]

I still trust physical anthro more than genetics when it comes to personality and psychology.

[Kadu]

I still trust physical anthro more than genetics when it comes to personality and psychology.


But of course, how silly of me to judge people based on their actions and ideas. When all I have to do is to look at the size of their pinky finger, for the pinky finger doesn't lie.

[Frederick]

I still trust physical anthro more than genetics when it comes to personality and psychology.

PERSONALITY and PSHYCHOLOGY?

These things are in NO WAY connected to physical apearance.

Personality and Pshychology base

50% on DNA
50% on other factors (education, parents, friends etc)

And I am pretty sure, its not the same alleles that affect the lengh of a nose.

[Curtis24]

PERSONALITY and PSHYCHOLOGY?

These things are in NO WAY connected to physical apearance.

In fact, they are. Here's a one of the many, many (modern) studies that have been done on the subject:


Researchers spanning many scientific domains, including primatology, evolutionary biology and psychology, have sought to establish an evolutionary basis for morality. While researchers have identified social and cognitive adaptations that support ethical behaviour, a consensus has emerged that genetically determined physical traits are not reliable signals of unethical intentions or actions. Challenging this view, we show that genetically determined physical traits can serve as reliable predictors of unethical behaviour if they are also associated with positive signals in intersex and intrasex selection. Specifically, we identify a key physical attribute, the facial width-to-height ratio, which predicts unethical behaviour in men. Across two studies, we demonstrate that men with wider faces (relative to facial height) are more likely to explicitly deceive their counterparts in a negotiation, and are more willing to cheat in order to increase their financial gain. Importantly, we provide evidence that the link between facial metrics and unethical behaviour is mediated by a psychological sense of power. Our results demonstrate that static physical attributes can indeed serve as reliable cues of immoral action, and provide additional support for the view that evolutionary forces shape ethical judgement and behaviour.



http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/06/29/rspb.2011.1193.abstract?papetoc

[Frederick]

@Curtis: Still dont trust this shit not more than Astrology or palm line reading.

[Loki]

I still trust physical anthro more than genetics when it comes to personality and psychology.

I don't, sorry I'll have to disagree with you Curtis.

[Agrippa]

PERSONALITY and PSHYCHOLOGY?

These things are in NO WAY connected to physical apearance.

Personality and Pshychology base

50% on DNA
50% on other factors (education, parents, friends etc)

And I am pretty sure, its not the same alleles that affect the lengh of a nose.

First of all, how can you state that a personality traits or other traits are made up by genes and environment exactly around 50:50?

That is a nice compromise, but it isn't true, since some traits being primarily genetic, others primarily environmental and many can only be understood, actually most, as the result of genes adapting to the environment, which makes any estimation for which influence is more important extremely difficult - we can often just say for some that both influences are important, not which one at which percentage for sure...

And I'm not sure about whether it is even possible in the future, because different genetic predispositions and different environmental influences mean a different relation of genes vs. environment too. So one could probably estimate things individually - for specific traits and conditions, but not so generally.

Additionally, the point was never to say otherwise, but what is your body? Your body is the same thing, it is the result of genes and environment!

So forces which worked on your physical phenotype, might also have shaped your psychological traits. To give an example, if you lived healthy and being very masculine, you might have a very different personality from a person which was often sick and is feminised.

Obviously, those factors (health and sex type) can influence both, the physical and the psychological traits!

That's the point.

You see a hypermasculine leptomorph - he will be more likely to have certain personality traits than a feminised pyknomorph, simple as that, because what shaped his body, is quite likely to have shaped his personality - to a certain extend at least - as well...

The physical appearance is just a hint for certain genetic and environmental influences, which shaped the whole person, or are probably just correlated to certain traits, because f.e. Nordeuropids are more intelligent on average than Palaenegrids, primarily because of accumulated genes which increase intelligence, not because the physical Nordeuropid traits make people more intelligent themselves obviously.

On the other hand, other physical traits influence DIRECTLY psychological aspects, like the hypermasculine vs. Feminised comparison.

[Curtis24]

I don't, sorry I'll have to disagree with you Curtis.

Well, environment certainly plays a very important factor. Because of this, you can't say that all Nordids will be more similar to all other Nordids than other subraces etc.

But at the same time, phenotype is also a factor. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so much conflict between different races.

For instance, we all agree there are important psychological differences between blacks and whites, no? If this is true, you can also make subdivisions within the white race.

[Ibericus]

But, If physical appearance is based on environment, here we all agree, and then you say personality is connected to phyisical apearance, then personality is ultimately connected to environment, (appart from genetics) so yes, personality is based on genetics and environment, basically.

[Agrippa]

But, If physical appearance is based on environment, here we all agree, and then you say personality is connected to phyisical apearance, then personality is ultimately connected to environment, (appart from genetics) so yes, personality is based on genetics and environment, basically.

To give an extreme example, if you have a bull and a castrated ox, both might have the same genetic predisposition, but their phenotype will be clearly different and also more predictive for their actual physical and psychological traits, than looking into the genes, which are just INSTRUCTIONS.

Genes are instructions for your lifeform about what to do WHEN.

Obesity might serve as an example: If there is more than enough to eat, will you store as much as possible, moderately or not at all.

Your genes just fix, together with other environmental factors, how you will react, but if you are constantly starving, you will not grow fat even if your genes say so and if you are constantly over-eating, you might grow fatter, slowly but steadily, even if your storage level is genetically low.

Anyway, the phenotype allows us to conclude something about genetic traits of phenotypical importance and about the environmental influences.

Random genes don't allow that. As long as you don't know which gene makes which instructions - if any at all - you just go through DNA-variants which you can count, but which will tell you nothing.

And so far, there is just a lot of speculation and little knowledge about the genetic instructions of the human genome. The knowledge grows, but just slowly and the more it grows, the more we can connect the phenotype with the genotype...


Well, environment certainly plays a very important factor. Because of this, you can't say that all Nordids will be more similar to all other Nordids than other subraces etc.

But at the same time, phenotype is also a factor. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so much conflict between different races.

For instance, we all agree there are important psychological differences between blacks and whites, no? If this is true, you can also make subdivisions within the white race.

It is very important to stress:
Phenotype is not just race.
Phenotype is everything a living organism is, it is not just about superficial traits like the color of the skin or fur, it is about every trait the lifeform has - in humans this includes psychological and physiological traits too obviously.

Some hear phenotype and think about a racial trait list, but that's not it. The racial category/type is just part of a phenotype, a certain and rather important "package" of genetically determined traits an individuals and populations have.

[Curtis24]

This study is more powerful proof of the link between facial traits and personality:


In their experiment, the researchers had college students rate the faces of the CEOs of the highest and lowest ranking Fortune 1000 companies according to their perceived leadership abilities .

Certain personality traits associated with leadership, including competence, dominance, likeability, facial maturity and trustworthiness, can be judged from a person's face, previous studies have shown.

The researchers grouped these traits into two factors influencing leadership. Competence, dominance and facial maturity were combined to represent "power," while likeability and trustworthiness represented "warmth."

The CEOs who were rated as more powerful by the students turned out to be running more successful companies.



http://www.livescience.com/2225-ceo-success-face.html

[Curtis24]

But, If physical appearance is based on environment, here we all agree, and then you say personality is connected to phyisical apearance, then personality is ultimately connected to environment, (appart from genetics) so yes, personality is based on genetics and environment, basically.

Well, phenotype is ultimately more important than genotype in determining behavior. My sister and I have radically different personalities. I know many other siblings like that.

Genetic heritage is interesting from a historical perspective(shows how a country was settled), but it cannot really predict behavior or social organization IMO.

[Frederick]

Well, there is like 15 years of genetic research and 200 years of phenotype research.

Give Genes another 15 years and a computer will be able to recostruct the face of the person whos (full genome) DNA file he analyses.

[Frederick]

First of all, how can you state that a personality traits or other traits are made up by genes and environment exactly around 50:50?

This is done by comparation of twins, whos DNA is identical.

Different kind of twins have been compared. Such, who grew up in the same evoirement and such who have been split as babies and grew up in different envoirement.

I recall the "gifted" (IQ 130 or more) thing.

If one twin if "gifted", then the other twin has a chance of 50% to be gifted too, if grown up in a different envoirement.

If grown up in the same envoirement, the chance is 80%

The chance for a normal brother (who share about 50% of their DNA) beeing gifted if the other brother is, is at 25% in identical envoirement.

The overall chance for beeing gifted is at 2%.

[Agrippa]

This study is more powerful proof of the link between facial traits and personality:



http://www.livescience.com/2225-ceo-success-face.html

While I obvioiusly agree with it, I have to add that especially on an individual level such studies are always prone to fail, because they might confuse the effect with the cause.

For example some managers which have the socially dominant-progressive look will be more likely to come up the social ladder and being on top, as well as having an easier time on various occasions.

Don't forget, it is also about camouflaging and deceiving in nature, so people wouldn't "believe" in this traits, if there wouldn't be a real correlation, but on the other hand, once the link is there and fixed, it will work out if the respective physical traits are there alone.

For example a very fertile and healthy woman with no fertility and health traits will be still fucking ugly, while an infertile and sick woman with all fertility and health traits will be still more beautiful in comparison in particular.

So especially if it is about social success, one has always to keep that in mind - even though I'm pretty sure the respective traits make the males more likely to be the specific achievers indeed...

[Frederick]

Shouldnt you phenotyping cave monkeys not go to a different part of the forum with your theories? :)

[Loki]

Well, phenotype is ultimately more important than genotype in determining behavior.

No, I really think you are mistaken here.

[Curtis24]

Shouldnt you phenotyping cave monkeys not go to a different part of the forum with your theories? :)

if you want to stop arguing about this, then you should stop throwing out insults...

But anyway, this should really be a different thread, and this will be my last word on the matter.

[Agrippa]

Shouldnt you phenotyping cave monkeys not go to a different part of the forum with your theories? :)

Well, you started it with the Coon map and for me it is over with this answer to yours, unless you or somebody else comes up with another geno-phenotype issue :D

Also, it is ALWAYS about the comparison. Because who wants to stay with "you have component 3 at 30 percent" - oh nice, what does it mean?

It is always about comparing individuals and populations, finally fantasizing or really getting knowledge about phenotypes.

Because the genes without phenotypical importance are just letters and numbers, all people want to know something, almost in a mythical way, about themselves and others, "what's written in the DNA".

I mean people hear North Atlantic is dominant in thier make up and they might compare themselves to Celts, Irish and Brits or something like that. Probably even visiting a Celtic festival next time, which they would have missed otherwise...

In the end, talking about the DNA, it is always about concrete phenotypical traits and identity issues, unless you are comparing whole populations.


Well, there is like 15 years of genetic research and 200 years of phenotype research.

Give Genes another 15 years and a computer will be able to recostruct the face of the person whos (full genome) DNA file he analyses.

It won't completely, because you are missing the environmental factor.

Also, the genetic studies are most valuable if they help to understand and grasp, probably even solve some phenotypical problems.

It is not about "what's better", it is just that one shouldn't dismiss physical-phenotype research, because that are the important questions raised for genetics and that's what they should work on.

If there are typological concepts for example, genetics should be able to reconstruct - if including ancient DNA too - how the phenotype came up, spread, which advantages it had (again a cooperation of phenotypical and genetic studies!), how it is being inherited and what consequences this knowledge might have.

Searching randomly for single traits and genetic factors is what they HAVE TO DO, because they are stoke around in the dark of the unknown...

Once things are put together in a meaningful way, something like typology for the physical traits would be the next logical step in intra- and interpopulation comparisons, unless "political correctness" stops this advances.

[Curtis24]

No, I really think you are mistaken here.

Then we must "agree to disagree".

[Agrippa]

phenotype is ultimately more important than genotype in determining behavior.


That's an obvious thing, but the problem is the wording, because like I explained already, psychological-behavioural traits are in a way part of the phenotype.

The phenotype is already the result of genetic instructions + environmental shaping = phenotypical realisation.

So the question should rather be, which hints are more important for being able to making guesses about an individual's personality, physical traits or genetic analysis?

That depends largely on the quality of both - what can you analyse of the physique (including real data, probably hormone levels and the like, mimic, gesture etc.), what can you analyse of the genome (if you don't know what genes do what or can't analyse the important genes in question, you can say nothing about psychological traits)...

This means currently you can say more about a persons psychological traits if just analysing her with your eyes in most cases, unless there are known genetic factors of great importance, already known, you can analyse.

The more the genetic knowledge grows, the more we will be able to conclude from the genome directly - even though this will be never complete, because of the complicated nature-nurture situation and possible new/rare variants.

[Loki]

That's an obvious thing, but the problem is the wording, because like I explained already, psychological-behavioural traits are in a way part of the phenotype.


In short, phenotype is determined by genotype. So genotype is the ultimate origin.

[Agrippa]

The real problem I see with some analysis is that they go too much for quantity over quality. Many people go too much for quantity = percentages, rather than quality = phenotypical consequences.

Because one can have 25 percent genes of another population or race and little to no phenotypical traits of it, vs. another one (individual or population) might have much less, but it is of phenotypical importance and is genetic, therefore inheritable, too.

One might use some extreme Uralics vs. Pashtu as an example, which might in some cases have the same amount of Mongoloid admixture, but very different racial phenotypes, with one being significantly Mongoloid, the other very Europid.

Quantity largely ignores the factor of chance and even more important selection.

Because traits going unchecked by selection, or even without any phenotypical consequences, will be just randomly distributed, which is informative in the sense of ancestry and genealogy, but of little to no phenotypical relevance, not part of the "racial variation in the real living world" to put it that way.

Studies which concentrate on genetic variants with phenotypical consequences are much more important.

Also, if ignoring the typological aspect, the consequences are desastrous if dealing with quite variable populations, because the means and results in general, if not being put into context and trying to combine phenotype - genotype studies, as well as phenotypical groups in the population, will be often misleading.

For example to state that population X has a medium face and head, when in reality a large portion is longheaded-narrow faced vs. shortheaded-short faced, is misleading and ignores the intrapopulation differences.

Frequencies of single traits in a population are therefore just the starting point, the real goal should be to combine traits on an intra and interpopulational, as well as individual level and looking for correlations throughout time (ancient DNA) and space (geographical distribution) - as well as social, ethnic, regional etc. correlations too which go beyond that.

[Loki]

Being a certain percentage of a certain ethnic cluster doesn't necessarily say anything about "quality". All these groups have their individual strengths and weaknesses as well.

[Agrippa]

Being a certain percentage of a certain ethnic cluster doesn't necessarily say anything about "quality". All these groups have their individual strengths and weaknesses as well.

And on an individual basis one might have it or not.

There are however, for our species and if looking at the big picture, relative and absolute quality traits. The relative ones are context-dependent, like skin color, the absolute ones are more important for the human specific development and adaptability, more generally advantageous - like inteligence, attractiveness, physically versatile functional superiority etc.

But, to come back on the individual level, for example Nordeuropids have a higher frequency of genetic traits which make them more intelligent, but obviously, if an individual is otherwise Nordeuropid, but lacks those variants, he can say little about his "Nordeuropid superiority" - because he lacks one of the more important parts of it and if variants like him - in the context of the autochthonous population - would procreate more often than the more intelligent ones, the result would be "a downbreeding on the Negroid level"...

Therefore being part of a group, which is objectively superiour, doesn't mean oneself is to the same extend superiour, even if collective identity and pride are good and natural things, useful for a group's success in the greater competition at times.

If a moronic Nordeuropid would talk about Negroids being dumber than his race and therefore inferiour, he would be right, but if making himself look superiour because of that even on an individual level, even in front of a very much above average Negroid on a much higher level than him, would be somewhat strange...

Collective and individual evaluations, correlations and relations are not the same and often context specific.

[Frederick]

This is phenotype versus genotype:

Phenotype:
http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/13076d1208802437-bulldozer-casemod-butterkneter-img_8976.jpg

Genotype:
http://sequencer.de/forumsynth/simplesynth/simplesizer_base/VCO.JPG

Its absolutely possible to judge the performance of a computer that is unmixed and unchanged from the production, by looking at the case and the label on it.

But judging the performance of mixed and modded mashines, by looking at the case alone is impossible. You cant know if there is a 10Mhz processor in a supercomputers case or if there is a 8Core 3000Mhz processor in a C64 case, because there are no unmodded mashines anymore.

[d3cimat3d]

Genotype usually correlates with phenotype. Most of the time you can tell just by looking at the genotype what the phenotype will be and vice versa, but in some cases it isn't so.


Sandra was born in Piet Retief, a small conservative town in apartheid South Africa. Both Sandra's parents and all her grandparents were white. Her eldest brother was also white but Sandra and her younger brother had African features. Sandra's parents were both members of the National Party and supporters of the Apartheid system.

During apartheid, schools were segregated; however, since both her parents were white, she was sent to an all white school. Her parents hoped that as she got older she would get lighter; however, instead she grew darker and her hair became more tightly coiled. At boarding school she was shunned by the other school children because of her skin colour.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/millitarymind927/1-10.jpg
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/millitarymind927/4-7.jpg
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/millitarymind927/3-13.jpg
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/millitarymind927/2-12.jpg

[Agrippa]

Genotype usually correlates with phenotype. Most of the time you can tell just by looking at the genotype what the phenotype will be and vice versa, but in some cases it isn't so.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/millitarymind927/1-10.jpg
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/millitarymind927/4-7.jpg
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/millitarymind927/3-13.jpg
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj107/millitarymind927/2-12.jpg

I would have accepted such a case, if she would have had ONE single Negroid trait, but since she has a variety of Negroid traits which their parents don't have, this case must be controlled by a genetic test, because I HIGHLY DOUBT that both of the shown persons are her biological parents.

That would be a genetic-racial miracle and while I wouldn't say it is totally impossible, it is at least highly unlikely.

Again: If she would have had just single traits - ok, Mendelian laws applied, but practically the whole package for a mulatto? Joke.

[Ibericus]

Genotype determines phenotype. Autosomal DNA dictates how you look. Period.

[johngaunt]

I would have accepted such a case, if she would have had ONE single Negroid trait, but since she has a variety of Negroid traits which their parents don't have, this case must be controlled by a genetic test, because I HIGHLY DOUBT that both of the shown persons are her biological parents.

That would be a genetic-racial miracle and while I wouldn't say it is totally impossible, it is at least highly unlikely.

Again: If she would have had just single traits - ok, Mendelian laws applied, but practically the whole package for a mulatto? Joke.

Both parents were tested, and with 99% accuracy they were her parents.

For this to happend both parents would have required some very small amounts of african ancestry.

[Frederick]

Genotype determines phenotype. Autosomal DNA dictates how you look. Period.

Autosomal DNA dictated how you look, how your IQ is, hw your mentality is etc...

If you mix several kind of people, you could get mentality of group A, looks of group B, intelligence of group C.

And wooosh, the connection between looks and the other factors is blown up. ;)

So you could look like a Spanish and have the IQ of a subsaharan and the mentality of a Arab. No problem.

[Frederick]

aDNA is like a hand of cards...

Unmixed peoples look like this:
http://www.turbo-socks.de/gute_freunde/poker/royal_flash.jpg

But for mixed peoples it looks like this:
http://www.diversitypride.com/images/Hand-of-Cards-Line.gif

And each card represents a trait.

Now, the phenotye is the heart Lady...
But he is not 100% heart. A aDNA test would reveal it.

[Agrippa]

Both parents were tested, and with 99% accuracy they were her parents.

For this to happend both parents would have required some very small amounts of african ancestry.

Still it is hard to believe that it is no scam, because some of the traits she has are usually dominant, so they are present in the mulattoes only as long as they are in the phenotype and disappear in the genotype with the other phenotype in consequence.

But of course, very rare and strange recombinations are possible, but this case is really, really strange.


Genotype determines phenotype. Autosomal DNA dictates how you look. Period.

First, the allosomes and mtDNA determine your phenotype too.
Second, there are also environmental influences.

So there is no reason to stress autosomal DNA, better speak of DNA or genes as such and add to that the environmental influences which shape the instructions = phenotype.

[Frederick]

But the Autosomal DNA makes up like 99% of the DNA.

It should be much more imporant.

Y-DNA and mtDNA are a handfull of mutations in wich people differ.

If you want to reconstuct a Dinosaurier or an Neandetalian, you mainly need its aDNA to do so.

combine it with ANY Y-DNA you want and..... get a laboratory made Neandertal.

[Agrippa]

But the Autosomal DNA makes up like 99% of the DNA.

It should be much more imporant.

Of course, but there is no reason to exclude the allosomes and mtDNA, or is there any?


Y-DNA and mtDNA are a handfull of mutations in wich people differ.

If you want to reconstuct a Dinosaurier or an Neandetalian, you mainly need its aDNA to do so.

combine it with ANY Y-DNA you want and..... get a laboratory made Neandertal.

But not exactly the same.

That sentence

Autosomal DNA dictates how you look. Period.

is therefore wrong, because the rest of the DNA and mtDNA influences the phenotype too, as well as environmental factors, including epigenetic.

If you want to be correct, you have to say in the correct way...

[Frederick]

You are right. Envoirement affects looks too. Yes.

Also, there are genes that sleep by default but can be triggered active by envoirement. Others can become inactive by envoirement too.

Its a complicated thing that nobody fully understands so far.

Some go that far to claim, envoirement CANT cause anything that isnt existing in the DNA but can only activate or deactivate traits that are existing in a beeings DNA.

Wich again means, DNA sets the boundaries of your possibilities and DNA alone. But you need the correct envoirement to activate them.

[Agrippa]

You are right. Envoirement affects looks too. Yes.

Also, there are genes that sleep by default but can be triggered active by envoirement. Others can become inactive by envoirement too.

Its a complicated thing that nobody fully understands so far.

Some go that far to claim, envoirement CANT cause anything that isnt existing in the DNA but can only activate or deactivate traits that are existing in a beeings DNA.

Wich again means, DNA sets the boundaries of your possibilities and DNA alone. But you need the correct envoirement to activate them.

I think a simple way to understand that is if looking at muscles.

You can activate additional genetic factors to increase muscle power - or not (epigenetic and prenatal primarily).
You can starve your muscle, or feed it with energy.
You can train and let them grow or not.
You can train it in different ways if you train it etc.
Just look at people which being paralysed or in space - how fast the muscle can degenerate and that even in late age, after the major developments being concluded.

So even if you look at such a "simple" thing like a muscle, there are a lot of options from the geno- to the phenotype, even without looking at how complicated the processes in reality are and simplifying things drastically...

[dogwolf]

When I was a kid, I used to fork that kind of stuff into a manure spreader. Race has absolutely zero to do with intelligence, morals, or anything else - race is genetic response to the environment, and nothing more.

[BeerBaron]

When I was a kid, I used to fork that kind of stuff into a manure spreader. Race has absolutely zero to do with intelligence, morals, or anything else - race is genetic response to the environment, and nothing more.

Plenty of studies have been done that refute your claim. As for race, scientists are still uncertain if environment was the only cause, this is also basing everything on the "out of africa" theory.

[Ibericus]

You are right. Envoirement affects looks too. Yes.

Also, there are genes that sleep by default but can be triggered active by envoirement. Others can become inactive by envoirement too.

Its a complicated thing that nobody fully understands so far.

Some go that far to claim, envoirement CANT cause anything that isnt existing in the DNA but can only activate or deactivate traits that are existing in a beeings DNA.

Wich again means, DNA sets the boundaries of your possibilities and DNA alone. But you need the correct envoirement to activate them.
There also genes that manifestate in descendants or when recombined, you can be black-haired but carry the genes for red-hairism.

[Pallantides]

I wonder if someone could guess my general phenotype just based on this info(well most of you know what I look like from before):


mtDNA : N1a1a2
Y-DNA : R1b1b2a1a1*

EU7c

North Atlantic : 39.52%
North Euro : 35.29%
Baltic or Balto Slavic : 14.32%
East Euro or Finnic : 10.42%
East Eurasian : 0.42%
South Euro : 0%
Sub-Saharan African : 0%

[Curtis24]

I wonder if someone could guess my general phenotype just based on this info(well most of you know what I look like from before):


mtDNA : N1a1a2
Y-DNA : R1b1b2a1a1*

EU7c

North Atlantic : 39.52%
North Euro : 35.29%
Baltic or Balto Slavic : 14.32%
East Euro or Finnic : 10.42%
East Eurasian : 0.42%
South Euro : 0%
Sub-Saharan African : 0%

Mediterranid/Nordid/Cromagnid/Alpinid

(:P)

[Kanuni]

This is phenotype versus genotype:

Phenotype:
http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/13076d1208802437-bulldozer-casemod-butterkneter-img_8976.jpg

Genotype:
http://sequencer.de/forumsynth/simplesynth/simplesizer_base/VCO.JPG

Its absolutely possible to judge the performance of a computer that is unmixed and unchanged from the production, by looking at the case and the label on it.

But judging the performance of mixed and modded mashines, by looking at the case alone is impossible. You cant know if there is a 10Mhz processor in a supercomputers case or if there is a 8Core 3000Mhz processor in a C64 case, because there are no unmodded mashines anymore.

:thumb001: