I believe that if a person's ancestors were warriors and hunters they have better genetics when it comes to stuff like strength based activities and dimorphism.
Here are a few reasons why I speculate this:
- Nordics have some of the highest Yamnayan/Steppe DNA in the entire world
- Also are one of the strongest races
EHGs carried variants associated with taller stature, especially compared to early Neolithic farmers who migrated into Europe from the Near East.
They contributed genetically to later populations like the Yamnaya, who were also notably tall — averaging around 5'10" to 6' (178–183 cm), which was very tall for prehistoric times. And guess what these guys ate: FUCKING MAMMOTHS.
Modern north-European strongmens (Scandinavia, Finland, Baltic) are related to Yamnaya ancestry (or rather Western Steppe Herders), who were mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherers and Caucasian Hunter Gatherers.
Caucasus Hunter Gatherers. Probably high level of testosterone comes with them. Because the same situation is observed for all ethnic groups of Caucasus, Balkans, Carpaths. Balkan and Carpathian people also carry genes of Caucasian Hunter Gatherers.
Hunter gatherers in neolithic were bigger and stronger than the Anatolian neolithic farmers who were below average in height. Most people of Anatolian ancestry today are mainly southern Europeans (meds).
I am sure sexual selection played a role as well, but what do you guys think?
Europeans across the board, north and south, were pretty short from the early industrial age until pretty recently, some time after ww2. Rural Americans were the tallest in the world because they had a superior diet and lifestyle to urban Americans and Europeans, while having the same genetics. Now, it's the opposite. Americans have the worst diet of any western country, as a result, white americans despite being mostly of germanic stock are shorter than Southern Europeans today.
And it's not just size, it's robustness too. If you want a good example of diet and environment influencing how well built people have the potential to be vs how they are, look at east asia. East asians are another arctic derived race. Actually, both east asians and the yamnaya share paternal ancestry with tianyuan man. They're not supposed to be as lithe and skinny as they are, but they've eaten a diet of primarily milled rice for the past several thousand years. Mongolians and turkic people show the actual genetic potential of northeast asians.
Yes I actually heard about this. He was the first discovered man to have the haplogroup R1a. The question is why do asians look so much more differently phenotypically than the yamnayans?
Also how do new haplogroups even form?
> They're not supposed to be as lithe and skinny as they are, but they've eaten a diet of primarily milled rice for the past several thousand years.
that's why we call them ricecels lol
Also you seem to be very invested and high iq on these topics. How did you discover this shit. Thanks for explaining better than I did. I had the same idea just couldn't put it to words.
Layers and layers of hybridization.
The yamnaya were hybrids between caucasian hunter gatherers and Eastern hunter gatherers. Eastern hunter gatherers may have been asiatic. The physical appearance of some asiatic looking nordics (without Sami ancestry), best visual example I can think of is bjork, has been blamed on EHG before. I myself somewhat fell into this category when i was a young child, i had epicanthic folds until i was about 7-8. I blame it on baltic ancestry. CHG were decidedly not. Modern Europeans are further hybridization of yamnaya, western hunter gatherers, and Neolithic farmers, 2 out of 3 of these had no asiatic dna at all.
Furthermore, northeast asians are mostly tianyuan, but southeast Asians are themselves hybrids between tianyuan people and a probable dravidian-type people. The Japanese are hybrids between tianyuan people and ainu. My assumption is that tianyuan probably looked somewhere between mongoloid and caucasian, possibly like an amerindian.
Breakdown is basically like this:
Ancient north eurasians were about half-tianyuan through the fathers line. EHG was majority ANE, let's say they were 40% tianyuan, the yamnaya were about 20% tianyuan, northern Europeans are about 10% tianyuan and southern Europeans are about 5-6% tianyuan. This is the most reasonable approximation I've seen. Some estimations give tianyuan ancestry at an almost absurdly low level, but the thing is that it's probably not that low if they replaced the genetic paternal lineage of western settlers in Siberia.
>Also how do new haplogroups even form?
Y and MtDNA mutate *very slowly* over time, eventually they mutate *enough* that they form unique subclades among specific populations, and then those mutations form their own subclades. R is an east Asian haplogroup, it's descended from K2. R is a sister of O, N, and Q
>How did you discover this shit
Interest in genetics led me to discover new information through actively seeking it out and digging around deeply
Niggers are from a different species of "homo" entirely that developed in Africa.
I'm not gonna lie blue eyes from Western hunter-gatherers and blonde hair from ancient North eurasians is probably the best form of race mixing I have ever seen in the entire history of this world. I'm usually against race mixing but in circumstances like these it clearly improved the gene pool. I don't think anything like this will ever happen again.
wow that's quite the assumption you are making there. Nah, bro. The superior whites left Europe, were selected and filtered by the harsh environment of foundational America. You are the bitch-made short-king cuckold-enjoying homo genetics we left behind. That is why you are short, not masculine, and vote domineering women into your political offices.
see how questioning the foundational axiom changes the argument? you probably do not. go watch TV.