Assuming the premise that the criminal population generally has more cases of XYY chromosomes than the general public, would it follow that Australians would have more cases of this in their gene pool? Australia of course was a penal colony not too long ago and the gene pool is relatively small and closed off. I would assume a study would not have been done on this as it is not too flattering nor PC.
XYY is not an inherited trait.
Way to go with a first post!
Actually, nearly half of Australians have either been born overseas or have one or both parents born overseas.
So lil ol Oz would actually be one of the most outbred nations.
Conversely the incidence here of having XXXX is much higher than the global average.
No, even if the first premise were true and the trait were heritable, which it isn’t, your unstated second premise (“those transported were all criminals”) is not - a sizeable proportion were political transportees, so XXY would have to present a survival advantage to be retained, I think.
Only about 20% of Australians today are descended, even to a small extent, from transported convicts:
You’ll note in that article that someone did some research on what British colony in America (before the American Revolution) had the most convicts transported to it. It was Maryland. So I should be the one complaining about this, not you, gozonuts. Except that I was born in Ohio. There has been far too much shuffling around of people since the last transportation (in 1868) to be able to say anything accurate about the criminal genealogy of people.
The widely-accepted notion that XYY is seen more often in criminal populations than non-criminal is not true. It was based on badly flawed work way way back, and has repeatedly failed to be borne out by later, better run studies.
Nope. There were several penal colonies, and they did not cover the entire continent.