Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Warrior gene?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Warrior gene?

    Just saw this on FTDNA's Facebook post:

    We are providing the tests for the program at NatGeo Channel on December 14th, and we created this page especially for the occasion:

    The Warrior Gene
    www.thewarriorgene.com

    the text is a bit, well, shall we say, sensationalistic?

    ================================================== ======
    IS VIOLENCE IN OUR DNA? DISCOVERY OF A

  • #2
    I wonder what they mean by "violent". Like, Evander Holyfield or Mean Joe Green , Violent ? Or Osama Bin Laden , BTK killer , Violent ?

    Comment


    • #3
      The url name "warrior gene" is somewhat misleading. The webpage talks about violence. To me there is a subtle difference between "warrior" and "violent". I'd rather be around a "warrior" than be around a violent person. A "warrior" can be thougtful and control and steady himself and have a noble purpose (construction, carpentry, activists and so on. And the average guy that is into sports.), but a "violent" person can't. Maybe the "God gene" makes the difference. I do believe some people are born violent (the criminally insane), but it is rare, much rarer than the 1 in 3 the url says. But human history is very violent. Look at all the wars that happened all around the globe for thousands of years. I read that there is archaeological evidence that humans killed (genocide) the Neanderthals. I think most of the violent people (men) killed each other off and that is why we eventually became a mostly-docile people and were able to create art and architecture and music and civilizations.
      Last edited by rainbow; 6 December 2010, 09:27 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        case in point:
        The Vikings originated from Scandinavia. The Vikings were notoriously violent. Nowadays Scandinavia has the most placid, milktoast, mild population that I know of. Their police don't even have guns. That is because all the violent Vikings left Scandinavia and dispersed into other populations. The people left behind in Scandinavia were women and children and mild men who didn't want to be Vikings. Eventually some Vikings settled in Northern France (Normandy) and married the local women and adopted Christianity, then later they went to England and became English, and then later on the English went to America to become Americans, and later on Americans had to go to Europe to save Europe from the Nazis. I think that some of the residual old Viking genes, mixed with the "God gene", are in some Americans.
        That is just a European example. Maybe the other continents had a similar situation. Asia had a dispersal of Hun/Mongolian warrior genes.

        I don't have cable. I won't see the NatGeo show.

        Comment


        • #5
          Man as a "violent" being.

          As it would be simple to state this, given all of the wars fought throughout the ages, I would argue that this is by construct rather than genetic design.

          Most wars are politically motivated and have been throughout modern history. Many men were enlisted against their will and hence, we have here in the US an all volunteer, professional military.

          Now, by the vary scientific definition of violent, every movement we make is a violent one. It's the intent that separates us from malevolence. With that being said, I think you are correct that some people may be predisposed to these tendencies. An excellent place to start would be to test the men and women of an all voluntary military force and measure the quantitative correlations. This may give us some scientific insight as to who is willing to kill and be killed. But with that there are some corollary issues to deal with, such as: many military people enlist due to a lack of options, many professions within the military are non-violent specialties. So narrowing it down to battle prone specialties such as Rangers,Green Beret, Seals, and infantry should narrow the focus.

          Incidentally, I associate the term "warrior", with someone who endures hardship with honor and purpose, and within that scope there are many options to qualify as a "warrior."

          Comment


          • #6
            uh... post got cut off and I dont want to type it again.

            Comment


            • #7
              @Rainbow:

              Violent and warriorlike types not only leave (or better: "Adventurous" types leave. "Down to earth" people stay at home), but they also get killed in combat.

              There is a saying of Hitler

              es sind ohnehin nur noch die Minderwertigen uebrig, denn die Guten sind gefallen
              Translated: Anyways, only the inferior are left, because all the good ones are killed in action.

              He says that at days before the end of the war. In a monologe in wich he says, it would be better if all of Germany becomes genocided now. Because, all Germans that had been worth living, died on the battlefields and only the cowards, weak and sickly survived. Not the bloodbase anymore, that would be needed to survive future wars on recources.

              In the very same monologe he also sticked to his darwinist phisolophy and claimed that in this ultimative trial of strengh, the Slavic people would have proven their superioty to the Germanic people and so, the Germanic people have left their right to live.

              Well, he totaly ignores that there was a west-front too in that war, it seems.

              ---------------------------

              Different but related:

              I once read about "evil" males producing more children than "good" ones. And do so with a higher number of different females than "good" ones.

              Wich means, beeing evil gives an reproduction advantage.
              And if good and evil would be a matter of genes, the world must be a horrible place by this moment and becoming a worser hell each generation and all good humans must have been driven to extinction.

              So, by the fact (really!?) that there still exist "good" humans, "good" and "evil" must be not a genetic thing OR something not known til now, makes "good" males genes slip through the laws of darwin.

              Comment


              • #8
                This is regarding the X chromosome, and only applies to men.

                Therefore, only mother's pass this warrior gene onto their sons.

                Mother's will get that chance to pass down one of her two X chromosomes to her sons.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thats pretty strange.

                  So its based on pure random. (it does not increase the chance to be spread by increasing the "sexyness" of its bearer.)

                  But is pretty useless and randomly spread.

                  PS:
                  I also wonder if there is anything behind it.

                  I mean:
                  23andMe claims I possess the genes to feel pain less intense than normal but in reality I am a Sissi if it comes to pain. ;-)

                  My risc to have "psoriasis" is 60% of what is population average but.... I suffer from psoriasis.
                  Last edited by Daniel72; 6 December 2010, 06:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    When your country asks for men to go in the armed forces,
                    The good ones go, evil or not.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Monoamine Oxidase A

                      Originally posted by rucksack View Post
                      This is regarding the X chromosome, and only applies to men.

                      Therefore, only mother's pass this warrior gene onto their sons.

                      Mother's will get that chance to pass down one of her two X chromosomes to her sons.
                      When I looked at the www.warriorgene.com webpage the other day I read that it is a genetic test for men only, so I assumed it was probably a SNP on the Y chromosone (YDNA).
                      But you say it is from the X chromosome. Men and women have X, so why is the test only for men? Can women be tested too?
                      Last edited by rainbow; 7 December 2010, 03:29 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hmm.

                        I googled more on this so called "warrior gene" and found that its connected to:

                        - criminal behavior
                        - preference to use physical violence to solve problems
                        - becoming unusual agressive when provocated
                        - beeing more likely to drink and smoke a lot
                        - beeing addicted to risk and danger

                        And that the population, this seems to be most common are the Maori:

                        http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Page...ri-warrior.jpg

                        Who seem to possess it in 60% of all cases.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is an X-Linked recessive gene. Meaning women are far less likely (I would guess somewhere approaching zero percent probability) to inherit two mutated copies of the gene. A woman has two X-chromosomes and if one has the warrior gene on it then the other is most likely normal, so the warrior gene will not be expressed as it is over written by the normal copy. In men this will appear if they inherit the mutated X chromosome since they receive the Y-chromosome from the father and not another X chromosome that could possibly over write the warrior gene. Hope this helps. You can find a wikipedia page on X-linked inheritance here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_recessive

                          -Darren Marin
                          Family Tree DNA

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That means it is possible. Rare, but possible. There are females who are more easily aggravated than some males.

                            I think "warrior" is a misnomer and the advertisement is misleading. Of course lots of men want to be "warriors" and would take the test that would label them warriors.

                            Who knows, maybe there are other similar genes, not yet discovered.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Accordiung to FTDNA they won't offer it because it's not known what effect it has on women. THat's horse****. SHouldn't you be allowed to know your odds of giving birth to a hyper angry male?
                              Last edited by Darren; 9 December 2010, 10:20 PM. Reason: Inappropriate language

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X