What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir ?)

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
M.Sjostrom

What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir ?)

Legg inn av M.Sjostrom » 28 jan 2008 05:10:02

"There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on
the Y chromosome except those directly related to
being male. Most of the genes on the Y have analogs
on the X that effectively do the same thing, or are
poorly characterized but are not linked to any known
trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give
you crypto-gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such
as SRY and TDFY that are required to be male, but it
is not like there are characterized gradations between
manly men, and
sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-watching-football men
and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced to
differences in the Y chromosome.
There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and
a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized
difference in Y chromosomes are in regions that have
no role in gene regulation or phenotype at all."


'Manliness' was perhaps not the best word for things I
aimed to say. (Mayhap I was thinking our good Will
when thinking up that word...)
For example, I do not mean manliness in sense of
intersexual mutations and likes. They are not very
useful for any genealogy, seeing that often they
result in inability to procreate.
And for monarchical succession, I think they are
practically fatal: a warrior tribe rarely considers a
visibly intersexual person as its chief, whatever are
ancestral rights.

Todd, are you saying that there is no known thing in
behavioral traits that is shared within a patriline,
in distinction to other patrilines?

I have long thought about the prevalent pattern of
succession in quite a many cultures, separate from
each other. The so-called Salic Law (some cultures,
such as East Asian, did not naturally use that term,
but had the same inheritance pattern nevertheless).
And tried to find some reasons in genetics for such a
thing.
Perhaps I am not the best one to find such
explanations, seeing that personally I do not believe
in wisdom of Salic Law - it is really impractical and,
in long term, a doomed rule - and it is even more
precarious and fragile in light of hidden adultery
than other hereditary succession systems.

If the limitation to real agnates, as opposed to
inheritance by kinsmen also via female connections,
has had no basis in genetical heritage, why then is it
as common as it has been, in more or less separate
cultures.

The only fairly unaltered thing two distant agnates
have in common, is their Y chromosome. Somehow they
have been preferred as successors to each other,
despite of there being maternal grandsons or uterine
nephews available, with much more in common with the
predecessor.

Todd found the words initiative and fitness (to rule).
My earlier words included temperament, eagerness,
instinctiveness.

If there is no common traits inherited in the Y
chromosome except the anatomical gender, then it
should be and should have been immaterial whether a
ruler got succeeded by his brother's son or his
sister's son. And sister's son or own grandson via a
daughter, would have been usually preferable to a
remote agnatic male cousin. But still, brother's son
and/or remote agnatic cousin enjoyed preference very
often. Brother's son enjoyed preference practically
always.

Is it totally incorrect to think that those
male-gender-specific hormones which are triggered in
puberty (testosterone at least, but how about also
adrenaline, and some others?), are in some little way
different in different patrilines? Or, is testosterone
a standard thing, identical in every human male?

Those genes on the Y which have analogs on the X (and
do effectively same things), are they identical with
their analogs in X, or are there differences?
Differences which may translate to differences between
behavioral heritage of male and of female?

What traits then do the characterized differences in Y
chromosomes (other than anatomical gender) impact?

Todd, are you saying that boys and girls do not have
any genetic difference as to their instincts to
- start build a hut (though not necessarily decorate
its interior)
- go hunting
- go exploring
- take an instinctive stance against a threat.
I have thought, on basis of some read
popularized-science reports/ articles/ other sorts of
texts, that such instinctive tendencies are a part of
male heritage. That there is a difference between
human genders in those respects.
Perhaps I believe too much in the words of those who
say that, despite of modern PC thinking and the desire
to think in unisex terms; boys and girls do have other
in-born differences than only those certain anatomical
parts. Still, I do believe that. Even on basis of my
own layman observations of how kids seem to behave.

Extension: if such are a part of male heritage, and do
not result only of upbringing, instilled attitudes and
expectations..., then, where can such heritage reside
except in Y chromosome.




brother, agnatic successor, tends to exhibit fairly
similar temperament as the predecessor, because of
their common heritage.

"Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage
from all parts of the pedigree. Tell me, who did
Henry II resemble more in his initiative and fitness
to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?"

Obviously, he resembled a lot Empress Maud and Henry
I. But he did not un-resemble Geoffrey or his paternal
grandfather, Fulk.
Did Henry II really have similar temperament as Henry
I or William the Conqueror? I think not that similar.
I have thought that Henry II's somewhat violent
temperament came from Angevins, some of whom had been
a tad worse killers in their time.
Perhaps it is only what I wanted to see, to explain
the heritage; but I saw Henry II as mixture of
Rollo-line competence and efficiency, and violent
Angevin temperament.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

Gjest

Re: What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 jan 2008 06:30:02

On Jan 27, 8:04 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"There are few recognizable genetic traits that are on
the Y chromosome except those directly related to
being male. Most of the genes on the Y have analogs
on the X that effectively do the same thing, or are
poorly characterized but are not linked to any known
trait. Yes, there are several that when mutated give
you crypto-gendered or hermaphroditic phenotypes, such
as SRY and TDFY that are required to be male, but it
is not like there are characterized gradations between
manly men, and
sit-and-belch-in-front-of-the-TV-watching-football men
and men-who-love-Judy-Garland that can be traced to
differences in the Y chromosome.
There is no such relationship between 'manliness' and
a
shared Y chromosome. Most of the characterized
difference in Y chromosomes are in regions that have
no role in gene regulation or phenotype at all."

'Manliness' was perhaps not the best word for things I
aimed to say. (Mayhap I was thinking our good Will
when thinking up that word...)
For example, I do not mean manliness in sense of
intersexual mutations and likes. They are not very
useful for any genealogy, seeing that often they
result in inability to procreate.
And for monarchical succession, I think they are
practically fatal: a warrior tribe rarely considers a
visibly intersexual person as its chief, whatever are
ancestral rights.

This is my point. The kind of traits you are intentionally excluding,
the ones that entail biological gender assignment, are the only ones
with documented linkage to the Y chromosome.

Todd, are you saying that there is no known thing in
behavioral traits that is shared within a patriline,
in distinction to other patrilines?

I am saying that I am unaware of any genetic trait that passes in this
manner. I am in no sense an expert, but the number of genes on the Y
chromosome is less that 1% of the total, and most of them were not
even known until they were discovered by sequencing the whole thing.
I am only aware of a handful of them being studied, and all of them
are involved in gender determination (reproductively normal male, vs
hermaphrodite, vs female with a Y).


If the limitation to real agnates, as opposed to
inheritance by kinsmen also via female connections,
has had no basis in genetical heritage, why then is it
as common as it has been, in more or less separate
cultures.

I know there has been a lot written on this among social
anthropologists, but I can't cite anything off hand. It has been
claimed that a female-oriented system leads to more peaceful social
interaction, because the male leaders have originated in some other
community that that in which they end up, and would still have strong
feelings of relationship with the (neighboring) village of their
birth. The relationship is a step removed in a male-based system. To
speculate, if this then makes the male-dominated system more likely to
be aggressive toward their neighbors, could it be nothing more than
the pacifists being overwhelmed by the expansionists, who even have
the ability to marry in and then take over?


The only fairly unaltered thing two distant agnates
have in common, is their Y chromosome. Somehow they
have been preferred as successors to each other,
despite of there being maternal grandsons or uterine
nephews available, with much more in common with the
predecessor.

This ignores the cultural aspects.


If there is no common traits inherited in the Y
chromosome except the anatomical gender, then it
should be and should have been immaterial whether a
ruler got succeeded by his brother's son or his
sister's son. And sister's son or own grandson via a
daughter, would have been usually preferable to a
remote agnatic male cousin.

except the grandson would be an infant, and the nephew would at least
be younger in societies where age would be important to standing.

But still, brother's son
and/or remote agnatic cousin enjoyed preference very
often. Brother's son enjoyed preference practically
always.

I don't think it really was all that often that there was a broad
agnatic succession, and when there was, it was derivative of a more
simple situation with a more simple agnatic pattern (bearing in mind
that at the time these systems arose, a leader would die before his
son or nephew was of age to lead).


Is it totally incorrect to think that those
male-gender-specific hormones which are triggered in
puberty (testosterone at least, but how about also
adrenaline, and some others?), are in some little way
different in different patrilines? Or, is testosterone
a standard thing, identical in every human male?

Testosterone levels vary in males (and females) but the genes that
provide this differential presence are not found on the Y chromosome.
The Y is just the on-off switch, which activates (mostly indirectly)
genes found throughout the genome, and inherited 50% from each parent.


Those genes on the Y which have analogs on the X (and
do effectively same things), are they identical with
their analogs in X, or are there differences?

The ones I was talking about have sequence differences, but function
the same.

Differences which may translate to differences between
behavioral heritage of male and of female?

No.

What traits then do the characterized differences in Y
chromosomes (other than anatomical gender) impact?

I don't know of any.


Todd, are you saying that boys and girls do not have
any genetic difference as to their instincts to
- start build a hut (though not necessarily decorate
its interior)
- go hunting
- go exploring
- take an instinctive stance against a threat.
I have thought, on basis of some read
popularized-science reports/ articles/ other sorts of
texts, that such instinctive tendencies are a part of
male heritage. That there is a difference between
human genders in those respects.

Well, this has not been demonstrated to be genetic, but you give a
little boy a Barbie doll and he tries to use it as a hammer. You give
a toy hammer to a girl and she puts a dress on it (obviously not all
girls and boys, but you get the idea). There are genetic differences,
and whatever they are, they are initially triggered by a small number
(less than a handful) of genes on the Y, but this only starts a
pattern of differential regulation across the genome, most
importantly, the androgen and estrogen levels (for example, one gets
converted to the other by P450scc, which is on chromosome 15).

Extension: if such are a part of male heritage, and do
not result only of upbringing, instilled attitudes and
expectations..., then, where can such heritage reside
except in Y chromosome.

A human will develop as female by default. If a Y is present, then
the gene SRY (which is Y-specific) will be active and will in turn
activate downstream genes, which in turn activate a broader range of
downstream genes. They do this by binding genes throughout the genome
and turning them on. In a female, the same affected genes are present,
but don't get turned on. The effects divide into two generic pathways,
one of which causes male development and one of which inhibits female
development. Most of the intra-sex differences are due, not to the
switch, but to differences in these downstream genes. (The only
analogy I can think of is flipping the light switch, you may get a
bright light from a 70Watt bulb, or a dim one from a 40Watt bulb, but
this has nothing to do with the switch.)

brother, agnatic successor, tends to exhibit fairly
similar temperament as the predecessor, because of
their common heritage.

"Well, yes, but this is the total genetic heritage
from all parts of the pedigree. Tell me, who did
Henry II resemble more in his initiative and fitness
to rule? His father, Geoffrey, or his maternal
grandfather, Henry I?"

Obviously, he resembled a lot Empress Maud and Henry
I. But he did not un-resemble Geoffrey or his paternal
grandfather, Fulk.

Yes, you throw all of the genes from all of the grandparents into a
hat and roll the dice to see what mix you get, then you have the
development of a unique phenotype based on this particular mix, then
you have a heavy level of environment, both directed and random. It
is all too complex to try to sort out in terms of a gene for
initiative, or anything like that.

Did Henry II really have similar temperament as Henry
I or William the Conqueror? I think not that similar.
I have thought that Henry II's somewhat violent
temperament came from Angevins, some of whom had been
a tad worse killers in their time.
Perhaps it is only what I wanted to see, to explain
the heritage; but I saw Henry II as mixture of
Rollo-line competence and efficiency, and violent
Angevin temperament.

This is the risk of such arguments - one is invariably cherry-picking
the data that demonstrate what they wish to show (not unique to
genetic arguments).

taf

Gjest

Re: What was a king anyhow? (was Re: Granada - king or Emir

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 jan 2008 19:23:02

On Jan 27, 9:28 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:04 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What traits then do the characterized differences in Y
chromosomes (other than anatomical gender) impact?

I don't know of any.

I didn't read this question clearly, so let me amplify. Most genetic
difference (as high as 10% of the genome) is inert. Even within a gene
that encodes a protein, about 20% of changes (and I am ballparking
here - it differs from species to species) made no difference it that
protein whatsoever. Most of the 'characterized differences' in the Y,
though, are in regions that do not encode anything. They are in what
is termed imprecisely as 'junk DNA'. You may have, in the middle of an
area of random/immaterial sequence a string of 15 GT pairs
(GTGTGTGT.....). This type of sequence is somewhat prone to copying
errors and like Mississippi becoming Missippi or Missississippi, you
get what is called 'stuttering', which adds or removes a GT pair,
giving our 14 or 16. It has no real effect on anything, but by
characterizing a good number of such sites you can distinguish one Y
chromosome from another, and by comparing, predict a pattern of
historical divergence and inheritance.

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»