Aryan Union of Celts wrote: And science isn't a credible source.
LOL. So basically, anyone's observations of the natural world at any point are totally invalid all the time?
Advertisement
by The Cobalt Sky » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:01 pm
Aryan Union of Celts wrote: And science isn't a credible source.
by Aryan Union of Celts » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:01 pm
by Prussia-Steinbach » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:02 pm
Aryan Union of Celts wrote:I hear white people being raped and attacked by iimmigrants.
by United States Kingdom » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:08 pm
Imperialisium wrote:The Cobalt Sky wrote:Yes. Mans since we seem to be on the same side with this--
Aside from being total crap, That would be calling mixed race people genetically inferior, no? Even if it's only "usually," that's still saying the majority of us are genetically bad.
No it isn't it. Stop being presumptive and treating a difference in the matter as an insult.
I said "usually" for ease in the fact it all comes down to case by case basis and there are significant risks and its been proven that dominant genes pass on more readily than recessive genes. I'm more concerned for the child's health than the fact its a mixed race child. Like I've already said I could care less about the baby being mixed race. I'm more concerned about the possible genetic outcomes that may effect the child.
So unless you can show me how recessive genes are in fact more dominant than "dominant" genes I suggest you stop.
by Imperialisium » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:17 pm
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Imperialisium wrote:So how can I be racist if I actually care about everyone involved? Further saying I am wrong is a matter of opinion.
1. You believe those of mixed race have more negatives in their gene pool than those of a single "race," therefore you believe they are inherently inferior, by the very definition of these words.
2. It is not opinion. It is scientific fact.
by United States Kingdom » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:21 pm
Aryan Union of Celts wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:
Science has proven race does not exist. Officially. Indisputably.
Your racism is founded on nothing.
If race isn't real then neither is racism. And science isn't a credible source. These are people who think we came from monkeys and claim the earth just randomly appeared.
by Sun Wukong » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:23 pm
United States Kingdom wrote:Aryan Union of Celts wrote:If race isn't real then neither is racism. And science isn't a credible source. These are people who think we came from monkeys and claim the earth just randomly appeared.
If you don't believe that science isn't a credible source, then I assume that you haven't been in school, nor have you participated in science, or any subjects that are related to science, such as math, etc.
by The Rich Port » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:26 pm
Sun Wukong wrote:United States Kingdom wrote:
If you don't believe that science isn't a credible source, then I assume that you haven't been in school, nor have you participated in science, or any subjects that are related to science, such as math, etc.
Buddy, he's going to be an ex-nation in like 5 minutes. A few days, tops.
by Reploid Productions » Wed Jul 29, 2015 6:30 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Aryan Union of Celts wrote:If race isn't real then neither is racism. And science isn't a credible source.
Yes, no, race isn't real, and yet you seem to think it is.
Do you also believe in unicorns and fairies?Sun Wukong wrote:Buddy, he's going to be an ex-nation in like 5 minutes. A few days, tops.
Like I said, he's someone's puppet most likely who thinks his ego will be preserved by being someone else.
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
by New Jordslag » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:09 pm
by New Jordslag » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:25 pm
by Crimiea » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:32 pm
Song of the Now:We are this Crimea|Political Compass
Captain America punching Richard Spencer
Greatest political ad since 2011|¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Should've pick the Jew, Antisemitic Hillbots
by The Cobalt Sky » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:44 pm
Imperialisium wrote: I never said anyone of mixed race was inferior.
Imperialisium wrote:Mixed race babies usually have more negatives than positives in their gene pool. Maybe in a million years when Evolution kicks in it'll work out better. Till then not so much.
Further how could I consider them inferior when I've showed nothing but concern for any child regardless of race the utmost concern for their well being?
I'm worried for black people because I do not think they have the mental capacity to lead their lives properly.
by The Rich Port » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:01 pm
by Yumyumsuppertime » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:04 pm
by Bogdanov Vishniac » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:38 pm
Imperialisium wrote:Also since you so dearly love my comment about the gene pool perhaps you could actually put it how I meant it. In that there are health risks just like with a single race. There are however dangers in the fact that a good recessive gene may be overtaken by a malicious dominant gene.
by USS Monitor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:08 am
Imperialisium wrote:Also since you so dearly love my comment about the gene pool perhaps you could actually put it how I meant it. In that there are health risks just like with a single race. There are however dangers in the fact that a good recessive gene may be overtaken by a malicious dominant gene.
by USS Monitor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:26 am
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Imperialisium wrote:Also since you so dearly love my comment about the gene pool perhaps you could actually put it how I meant it. In that there are health risks just like with a single race. There are however dangers in the fact that a good recessive gene may be overtaken by a malicious dominant gene.
Recessive genes are by definition non-functional or low-function. Dominant genes are dominant because they function 'correctly', and can to a small or large extent 'correct' for the non-functional recessive gene. Example: a species of flower has two a of a gene A in each of its two chromosomes (AA), which codes for the red dye molecule that makes its flowers red. One flower develops a mutation in one copy of the gene, leading to it having the genotype Aa. The mutated 'a' gene does not function properly, and so it doesn't produce any red dye molecules. The flower therefore produces less dye molecules than other AA plants, so its flowers are pink. If another mutation were to occur to make the flower have the genotype aa, it wouldn't produce any dye molecules at all, and so would be white.
This is why recessive genes are very rarely strictly adaptive (ie increases the fitness of an organism) in and of themselves - the mutations that cause recessiveness by definition make them function 'less well' than their dominant counterparts. Put another way, there are only a few scenarios where having a 'broken' gene (a recessive one, in other words) could be considered beneficial.
If a mutation were to occur that improved the function of the new mutation, the old 'dominant' gene would then be considered 'recessive' to its new counterpart, as the resultant organism would show the traits associated with the new gene. To go back to the flower example, say a mutation occurred in a plant with the genotype AA, which made the second copy of the A gene code not for red, but instead blue (AB). An AB organism would be purple, and thus gene B would be 'incompletely dominant' over A (And A would be thus 'incompletely dominant' over B). Any offspring an AB or BB flower would produce would carry one of the two dominant genes, and thus would have the partial or whole trait of the gene passed on no matter what the other version of the gene is. Compare that to an organism with the genotype aa, which would only produce white flowers if mated with another organism with an aa genotype. The 'a' mutation is recessive to all other versions of the gene.
This is all to say - your scenario simply can't exist. Moreover, even if it could exist, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it would occur with any more frequency in cross-racial breeding, since the vast majority of functional human genetic variation occurs within the groups we call 'races', not between them.
by Bogdanov Vishniac » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:32 am
USS Monitor wrote:Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:
Recessive genes are by definition non-functional or low-function. Dominant genes are dominant because they function 'correctly', and can to a small or large extent 'correct' for the non-functional recessive gene. Example: a species of flower has two a of a gene A in each of its two chromosomes (AA), which codes for the red dye molecule that makes its flowers red. One flower develops a mutation in one copy of the gene, leading to it having the genotype Aa. The mutated 'a' gene does not function properly, and so it doesn't produce any red dye molecules. The flower therefore produces less dye molecules than other AA plants, so its flowers are pink. If another mutation were to occur to make the flower have the genotype aa, it wouldn't produce any dye molecules at all, and so would be white.
This is why recessive genes are very rarely strictly adaptive (ie increases the fitness of an organism) in and of themselves - the mutations that cause recessiveness by definition make them function 'less well' than their dominant counterparts. Put another way, there are only a few scenarios where having a 'broken' gene (a recessive one, in other words) could be considered beneficial.
If a mutation were to occur that improved the function of the new mutation, the old 'dominant' gene would then be considered 'recessive' to its new counterpart, as the resultant organism would show the traits associated with the new gene. To go back to the flower example, say a mutation occurred in a plant with the genotype AA, which made the second copy of the A gene code not for red, but instead blue (AB). An AB organism would be purple, and thus gene B would be 'incompletely dominant' over A (And A would be thus 'incompletely dominant' over B). Any offspring an AB or BB flower would produce would carry one of the two dominant genes, and thus would have the partial or whole trait of the gene passed on no matter what the other version of the gene is. Compare that to an organism with the genotype aa, which would only produce white flowers if mated with another organism with an aa genotype. The 'a' mutation is recessive to all other versions of the gene.
This is all to say - your scenario simply can't exist. Moreover, even if it could exist, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it would occur with any more frequency in cross-racial breeding, since the vast majority of functional human genetic variation occurs within the groups we call 'races', not between them.
Where are you getting your info about genetics?
by USS Monitor » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:04 am
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
Where are you getting your info about genetics?
Coursework I've taken in university. I can cite a related wiki article if you like.
Often the dominant allele codes for a functional protein whereas the recessive allele does not.
Dominance is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, that is, whether it is regarded as "normal" or "abnormal," "standard" or "nonstandard," "healthy" or "diseased," "stronger" or "weaker," or more or less extreme. A dominant allele may account for any of these trait types.
Dominance does not determine whether an allele is deleterious, neutral or advantageous. However, selection works through differential reproduction of phenotypes, and dominance affects the exposure of alleles in phenotypes, and hence the rate of change in allele frequencies under selection. Deleterious recessive alleles may persist in a population at low frequencies, with most copies carried in heterozygotes, at no cost to those individuals. These rare recessives are the basis for many hereditary genetic disorders.
by The Rich Port » Thu Jul 30, 2015 3:53 pm
by Omega America II » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:25 pm
by Laerod » Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:30 pm
Omega America II wrote:We'll, i don't see how being proud of your race if bad.
But I do see how thinking your race is supreme is bad. Besides that, it's not that bad, white supremacy is bad.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Durius, Google [Bot], Hypron, Ifreann, Johodovill, Lefonal, New-Minneapolis, Res Publica Solaris, Stellar Colonies, Turenia, Valrifall
Advertisement