Still Uncivilized

Well, blacks have a genetic resistance to malaria, for one. Also, just the greater variety of genes available to natural selection would be a benefit. You know when animals are almost extinct, it is very difficult for them to recover, even when their numbers increase, because the genetic diversity built up over million of years is lost.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting, and how would blacks benefit from whites?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An increased variety of genes is better for everyone. Anyway, we are already mixed. What makes you think you are white? White skin is not an indicator of the lack of African genes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isn't it interesting and informative that whenever a white and black intermix, the child is ALWAYS lighter and the features almost always tend toward the white features? Why is that? Anyone know?

And if it is the case, does that mean that OTHER genetic traits of blacks is also subverted in favor of whites? Interesting, huh?

Baron Max

 

No, that's not interesting. It's not even true. The child is always lighter? Lighter than what? They can be darker than the white parent and lighter than the black parent. They can be considered less black or they can be considered less white, depending on how you want to look at it. And if a white/black child marries a white, they can get more white in appearance, but african genes are still present. If a white/black child marries a black, then they can look more black, even though caucasion genes are still present.

 

Sorry, Goat, it is true! As a matter of fact, you can pick up most any OLDER biology book on genetic breeding and you can read it for yourself. The black skin and the African features are subverted by the white "racial" traits. Check it out ...I don't have much luck with google, but i bet you can do it.

Baron Max

 

Baron, please. spidergoat went easy on you. According to genetics, white skin is a recessive gene. That means that if a white person and a black person mate, the chances of the child being only white are VERY slim. On the other hand, the chances of the child to be completely black are VERY high.

However, skin color is not the easiest genetic trait to examine. The child can have ma ny mixtures, depending on the parents. But in all cases, the black gene is always dominant over the white gene; which means that they are a priority. It seems that the only case in nature in which this scenario is reversed is with cats.

Also, keep in mind that skin color is not the only gene in question. What defines you as "black", as a race is not so much your skin color, but also all the other genes from that gene pool. The same is true to people with white skin. The skin is only one gene amonst many others in all gene pools.

And at last, the black skin color is far superior then the white skin color, as it provides protection against the sun. Black people are, for example, way less likely to get skin cancer. They also usually appear to be younger then they truly are. The black gene just means that the body produce more melanin, the hormone that produces skin color and protects the skin from the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_color
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1331319,00.html


PS: If the sun would shine stronger, or a supernova would explode nearby, the chances of survival of a person with black skin would be considerably higher then one with white skin.

 

Well, that does NOT seem to be the case, does it! Or have you forgotten direct observation in your "scientific" research? The gene may be "dominant", but the kid is ALWAYS lighter than the black partner .....ALWAYS!

You also forgot to mention that the thick, heavy facial features of the blacks is ALWAYS lessened in white-black offspring ....ALWAYS!

Seems like to me, if what ye're saying is true, that the "science" is trying overly hard to be politically correct, huh?

It might be better to have black skin, but evolution seems to pointing us in the other direction ...lighter skin or white skin!

"spidergoat went easy on you." And I am ever so thankful ...if he'd been too hard on me, I'm sure that I would have cried pitifully.

Baron Max

 

traitor. you will be held acountable for your crime against white humanity

It still is, according to a United States Supreme Court decision as late as 1986, which refused to review a lower court's ruling that a Louisiana woman whose great-great-great-great-grandmother had been the mistress of a French planter was black--even though that proportion of her ancestry amounted to no more than three thirty- seconds of her genetic heritage. "We are the only country in the world that applies the one-drop rule, and the only group that the one-drop rule applies to is people of African descent," Daniel observes.

http://www.afn.org/~dks/race/wright.html

 

a whole group of people want to say hello
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...rev=/images?q=belming&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=G

 

Interesting spidy, when I ask you what it is that whites can benefit from blacks, you have a clear answer.

But when asked how blacks can benefit from whites, you write this:

Look at your clear racism. It is clear your biased towards people of lighter skin, but even worse then that is your thoughts on creating a "master race".
Is it not racist in it'self do discribe people of mixed race as superiour human being's? Are the people that are not of mixed race somehow less evolved? are you trying to create a "master race"?

 

Don't start insulting other people and making insinuations of racism whilst you yourself are racist.
Hypocritical much?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, J.B, I was humoring you, and it is true that having a greater variety of genes would benefit everyone, and that goes both ways, but the whole question is ridiculous. I don't think having a particular set of genes is inherently superior, just different. My main objection to your arguments revolves around this; that any judgements of comparative worth are necessarily based on the culture in which you grew up. Every animal on planet Earth has evolved to be perfectly adapted to the environment in which it evolved. Also, generalizations about the characteristics of any race are mostly academic, and not applicable to the reality of an infinite variety of human beings.

I will illustrate how stupid your approach is, which is superior, a chimpanzee or a bonobo?
Which is superior, a white cat, or a black cat?
Which is superior, a draft horse or a pony?
Which is superior, a house fly or a horse fly?

 

This is clear "nazi" like thinking, it is as if you see in the future somekind of one master race theory.

You somehow want to "increace diversity" by mixing the gene pool?

You tell me how whites are NOT a race of people but then you write that you want to create "mixed race children" who would have "the quality of the genes, and disease resistance", and are "damn cute for some reason"?

I thought diversity was good, do you want to take away all diversity?

That is just how the nazis thought.

I think the diversity that makes up the differences in the races is worth preserving.

 

Typical projection, the nazi accuses others of being a nazi. People should mate with whoever they want.

Mixing races does not take away diversity any more than mixing cats makes them homogenous.

 

1. I think a chimpanzee with a bonobo would be quite "superior'.
2. What color couch do you have?
3. Are you trying to look cute, or do you have work to do?
4. I have never seen a horse or a house that was able to fly.

 

I gave you a link that clearly proved my point.

So? If a kid comes from two white parents, the kid is white. If a kid comes from two black parents, the kid is black. If the kid comes from a white and a black, the kid is ALWAYS closer to the black. That is the dominant gene expressing itself.

As I said before, skin color is not as simple as others. I gave you a link and it clearly says that there.

"Skin colour is determined by the amount and type of the pigment melanin in the skin. Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red to yellow) and eumelanin (dark brown to black). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete dominance. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from the father and one from the mother. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in a great variety of different skin colours."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_color

The black is dominant over the white, but because the dominance is imcomplete, the presence of the white gene is also expressed.

Same as above.

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about? You don't even know anything about genetics. :bugeye:

What the fuck are you talking about? :bugeye:


Have you read my second link? Or you are going to totally dismiss it?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1331319,00.html

 

No- they thought the exact opposite. They thought that the whites were a superior race and that all other races should be exterminated. What spidergoat is saying is exactly the oposite- all races should be able to mix with each other. I don't see how that can be nazi at all.

Ironically enough, mixing races actually creates more diversity.

 

Does not dominant = superior?

Anyways, here is a nazi site that agrees with your opinion:


"Negro genes are dominant over that of a White by a 4-1 ratio.
This means that any offspring from such a union will always favor
the Black parent, even if the Black parent is not a full-blooded
Negro".
http://www.mwkkkk.com/race mixing.htm

 

Not when it comes to genetics. In genetics, "dominant" only means that the expression of a certain gene overwrites the expression of another. It doesn't mean that the "dominant" gene is superior. In fact, there are a few rare "dominant" genes that are bad for you (and a few that are common as well). I think, if I remember correctly, that sickle cell anemia is an example of that...

So? Maybe that's the reason behind them wanting to exterminate other races.

EDIT: Btw, that site is full of fallacies, misconceptions and generalizations.