Phenotype Vs Genotype

[Didac]

I have come to the conclusion that they’re very loosely related. Just because ur ancestry is a certain way doesn’t mean you’ll look like it and wise versa. For example one person can be half west Asian half European let’s say iranian and jewish and north Indian Dutch. iranian and 25% Jewish father and 25% indian and rest Dutch mother. Two kids. Both boys let’s say for simplicity. One boy looks more Dutch because he took the pigmentation genes and the facial structure/phenotype of the mother but his dna results show he inherited alot of the indian from the mother and less of the Dutch genes/genotype. Where as boy two from his mums side took all the Dutch genes/genotype but got his phenotype/facial structure and pigment from his father and looks iranian,Turkish,Jewish


In Short/Conclusion Phenotype doesn’t equal Genotype

[Didac]

Ik it’s a bit of a confusing example turned out more confusing than I intended but I think the point got across

[Oliver109]

I have come to the conclusion that they’re very loosely related. Just because ur ancestry is a certain way doesn’t mean you’ll look like it and wise versa. For example one person can be half west Asian half European let’s say iranian and jewish and north Indian Dutch. iranian and 25% Jewish father and 25% indian and rest Dutch mother. Two kids. Both boys let’s say for simplicity. One boy looks more Dutch because he took the pigmentation genes and the facial structure/phenotype of the mother but his dna results show he inherited alot of the indian from the mother and less of the Dutch genes/genotype. Where as boy two from his mums side took all the Dutch genes/genotype but got his phenotype/facial structure and pigment from his father and looks iranian,Turkish,Jewish


In Short/Conclusion Phenotype doesn’t equal Genotype

I think that genes do explain phenotypes to an extent, for example Nordics tend to be haplogroup I which is derived from Meds while Alpines and CM types are haplogroup R, that said it is very loose.

[Petalpusher]

I think that genes do explain phenotypes to an extent, for example Nordics tend to be haplogroup I which is derived from Meds while Alpines and CM types are haplogroup R, that said it is very loose.

You do realize that Scandinavia is more R1 than it is I1? For Norwegians and Iceland it's not even close they are about two times more R1 than I1, Sweden equal and Finns are 2/3 N, Danemark is significantly more R1 too. The genotypes that matter in relation to phenotypes are not in the Y chromosome anyway. It's not even loose, it's irelevant in this case. Autosomal has naturaly more correlation, at least in frequency, as it's some kind of poll of all your genes in proportions.

[Oliver109]

You do realize that Scandinavia is more R1 than it is I1? For Norwegians and Iceland it's not even close they are about two times more R1 than I1, Sweden equal and Finns are 2/3 N, Danemark is significantly more R1 too. The genotypes that matter in relation to phenotypes are not in the Y chromosome anyway. It's not even loose, it's irelevant in this case. Autosomal has naturaly more correlation, at least in frequency, as it's some kind of poll of all your genes in proportions.

That is because Scandinavia is heavily CM, it is notable though how Sweden which has a higher Hallstatt component scores higher in I1 dna.

[Petalpusher]

That is because Scandinavia is heavily CM, it is notable though how Sweden which has a higher Hallstatt component scores higher in I1 dna.

That doesn't tell how you have certain phenotypes because of an Y that is mostly coding for proteine and the fact you are an human instead of say, a plant. Also females don't even have a Y, how does that Hallstat component works for females in that case? Females there are overwhelmingly H, like most Europeans. This makes no sense.

[Didac]

That doesn't tell how you have certain phenotypes because of an Y that is mostly coding for proteine and the fact you are an human instead of say, a plant. Also females don't even have a Y, how does that Hallstat component works for females in that case? Females there are overwhelmingly H, like most Europeans. This makes no sense.

It doesn’t because there’s nothing like this. Genotype doesn’t equal phenotype mostly. It’s only very slightly, this is especially seen in mixed individuals

[Universe]

It doesn’t because there’s nothing like this. Genotype doesn’t equal phenotype mostly. It’s only very slightly, this is especially seen in mixed individuals

Phenotype is literally the expression of genotype.

[Oliver109]

That doesn't tell how you have certain phenotypes because of an Y that is mostly coding for proteine and the fact you are an human instead of say, a plant. Also females don't even have a Y, how does that Hallstat component works for females in that case? Females there are overwhelmingly H, like most Europeans. This makes no sense.

I suppose with females it would be the dominant haplogroup of Europe and west Asia, all Caucasians are closely related, Med and CM types have the same Proto Caucasoid root.

[Petalpusher]

It doesn’t because there’s nothing like this. Genotype doesn’t equal phenotype mostly. It’s only very slightly, this is especially seen in mixed individuals

There is obviously a relationship, some known genes code for things that are apparent in us, like even the shape of your index finger or the length of your lashes, among millions of other things nobody cares about, yet very much linked to phenotype. Everything you see (and don't see) in a person is coded in his genome, this is why twins look the same, and even think the same, because they are a carbon copy genetically.

But it is certainly a relation that becomes apparent at a much larger scale, than a specific little chromosome like the Y representing less than 1% of a male genome, and that females don't even have.