Are we connected to our ancestors genetically?

Post Reply New Topic

Specifically for Americans of non native origin or peoples who live in a country where they aren't exactly the majority (i.e. Japanese American or Anglo-Indian)

I know that we adopt much of our behavior and our demeanors from our parents but I'm wondering if there's ANY genetic influence on our behavior, thought patterns, etc. I'm not a (insert any racial or ethnic group here) supremacist or anything but I'm wondering if certain traits are passed into people. Perhaps someone from Austria or India can have an aptitude for architecture, and maybe Greece and China for poetry, as a few examples?

I don't know how much I trust this question. I don't find myself having an easy time learning Yakut.

Nothing like the examples you cite. I think attempting to draw a line between ancestry and national character is doomed to failure.

However, many behavioural traits are genetic. Adopted children are more like their biological parents than their adopted parents.

Human history alone suggests that certain identifiable groups have influenced the planet in great ways ("great" meaning both good and bad). From the Egyptians and the Celts, to Greece and the Roman Empire, and to Great Britain and all the American immigrants north and south among many others; these great groups have shown equally great influences among others. The world is a better place for it.

The question you are asking is way too muddled to be answered.

Maybe you could refashion it offline, and then post a more clear version of the question.

An individual person could have a genetic predisposition for archetecture, and they may pass that on to descendants- including descendants who migrated to another continent..

But that has nothing to do with nationality, or race.

Norah Jones probably inherited her musical talent from the dad she never met: India's Ravi Shankar. And did so via genes. But thats one American individual inheriting talent from one individual foreign forebearer.

But that doesnt mean that all folks of Asian Indian descent are musical prodigies. Proportionate their numbers Indians likely have the some number of top musicians as any other race (neither more nor less).

Every population of organisms has statistical traits, large or small, that distinguish it from every other population. (No two populations are identical.) There are obviously statistical differences among human populations in height, body proportions, blood types, skin tone, facial features, etc., and it would be foolish to think there weren't similar statistical differences in behavioral and physiological traits. Defining what these "traits" are is non-trivial, however. They aren't likely to be things like "poetic ability" -- they are probably lower-level, elementary attributes (not sure what the right term here is). Disease resistance, susceptibility to drugs, digestibility of foods, strength of genetic kin-affiliation, etc., are certainly examples.

In a short answer: no.
If certain behavioral traits are genetic, then bigots could say that all blacks are criminally inclined, that all Jews are greedy, that all Germans are warlike, that all Irish are drunks,etc, all because their genes can't make them do otherwise.
Now, it is absolutely true that the culture and environment one grows up in, along with the circumstances that determined those environmental and cultural things, has an influence on how one behaves. But the thing is, the way one is brought up, if it is at all bad, can be overcome. Genes usually have little to do with it, save in extreme individual cases.

Yes, of course we are connected to our ancestors genetically, and of course there is some genetic influence on our behaviour.



I don't think it is. You answered it anyway



Of course it is related to race. A race is a group of people sharing who share a common lineage and are relatively genetically similar.



In a short answer: yes

No.

Norah Jones is one individual.

Ravi Shankar is also one individual.

Norah Jones likely inherited some of her musical inclination from Shankar via DNA.

But all south asian Indians are not musical virtuosos. So race has nothing to do with either Shankar, or Jones, being musically talented.

Then that would mean that stereotypes could be regarded as true: that blacks are lazy and violent, that all Scotsmen are cheap, that all Irish are shiftless drunks, that all Germans are Antisemites, that all Jews are deceitful and cunning, that all Italians are loud and scatterbrained, etc. Well, I refuse to accept that. While culture, and the circumstances leading to the creation of a particular culture, has undeniable influence on what a person becomes in life, that is not at all genetic. And culture, and the people practicing it, can change with the right impetus: case in point, how Germany became a totally remade country after WWII. Take an English baby, and have it raised in Japan, with no contact with England, and that English baby will grow up to be Japanese in language, culture, and religion, regardless of the fact that his or her DNA says that person is Anglo-Saxon. My family on both sides is very German, but because my people have been in America for over a hundred years, I have more in common with other Americans, regardless of their genetic background, than I have with the people of Germany.

I think there is an instinct for culture, but not a specific culture. Cultures are to recent and changeable to have left an imprint in DNA.

Specific cultures are "weather", Culture is "climate".

Weather does not influence genetic selection, but climate definitely does.

Who we are is a combination of genetics, epigenetics, environment, and nurture. There is heritability of certain physical traits and these physical traits, when neurological, may result in heritability of more intangible traits such as personality and aptitude, but [u]only weakly so[/b]. After my grandmother's passing, I discovered that we both shared an interest in a particular subject. My dad and brother have many commonalities...habits, interests, and personality traits, that, due to circumstances, my brother would not have been able to pick up from environment, and my brother, father, and yield similar results on learning assessments. We share a unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses, which is not likely to originate from environment.

However, my sisters and I are very different, and are different from each other as well, and my cousins are also very different.

Genetically based behavioral and cognitive traits don't diffuse well through populations because neural development is controlled by many different genes, increasing the odds that the group of genes that result in a given trait will change sufficiently to change the trait from person to person, or be sufficiently affected by epigenetics to affect the trait. Also, the brain is very "plastic" and even very homogenous populations of humans have sufficient genetic diversity to inhibit the widespread propagation of these traits. So you will likely not find a nation of people who have a genetic aptitude for architecture or poetry. You might find a family where you have a few good writers, or a few good mathematicians.

You are far more likely to see traits spread through a population when those traits are autosomal dominant, meaning, they are controlled by one gene and you only need one copy of that gene variant (as opposed to two), or there was very strong selective pressure for a particular trait. If poetry were integral to survival, perhaps you would eventually end up with a nation of great poets, but you could also end up with your entire founder population dying out because it would be a difficult trait to cultivate to begin with.

I have one nose, two eyes, two arms, and two legs, a backbone,bilateral symmetry, etc.

All of those traits are dictated by my DNA.

And probably virtually all of my DNA is inherited (we probably all each have minute amounts of mutations of our own not inherited- while the remaining 999,999 parts out of a million of our individual genome is inherited. But we each have a unique combination of inherited DNA).

And each of those DNA dictated traits has a long history of inheritence going back to prehuman ancestors. My mouth (for example) is a modified version of a fish's gill.

So duhhh, obviously we are what we are because of genes we inherited from our ancestors. Thats like saying "water is wet".


But exactly what aspect of genetic inheritence is the OP asking about? He needs to focus the question better for us to really respond to it.

It doesn't matter because we are all descendants of barbaric cavemen.