Genes and destruction

A

android

nothing human inside
Registered Senior Member
Spurious Monkey wrote:
"You don't know that genes don't get destroyed by mixing 'races'?"

Genetic profits, and traits, do. Any objections otherwise are semantic and wholly non-relevant to the debate (which seems to have been closed by your Christian admins).

:m:
 
Not quite. Spuriousmonkey is correct that the genes themselves are not destroyed, it is rather the arrangement of the genes that changes. It might be more useful to speak of alleles and allele frequency.

What you refer to as "traits" would be "allele frequency", the liklihood of such and such a trait - say Klum's blue eyes - occuring in a population. Interbreeding between two different races skews the allele frequency of both, causing not so much a loss of different traits as a re-arrangement of all.

Pardon if I get this a bit screwed, I'm drunk.
 
I've learned otherwise. I had a class on intelligence in college and there are a few theories that state the opposite. One was about the intelligence increases worldwide. In the developed nations (US, Europe, Japan) the average IQ has increased by about 3 points per decade. One of the theories for this is that in those nations people are more free to move around and breed with those who are different from them. By doing this, if a stronger gene is introduced, it will be passed on and cover up a weaker gene, thereby increasing over time. In undeveloped regions, people tend to stay in the same place for generations, the same gene pool, not much moving just stagnant. Because of this, they simply stay the same, no better genes are introduced to cover up weaker genes.

I forgot what country it was, it was somewhere in South America, but the average IQ in that country is 64. The theory is that because all of their "quality" people (doctors, lawyers, etc.) left for the US and other developed countries for better oppourtunities. This also tied into why developed nations tended to have an increase in IQ of about 3 points per decade. There was some story about the exchange in Europe, or between Europe and the US that inviolved this that had governments worried about losing their wuality people. Can't remember the example though, maybe one of you know.

Anyway, one argument against the average IQ argument was that the average IQ has always been 100, and that's true, it has. The thing is that it is continually adjusted to keep it at 100. The average IQ has increased by 3 points a decade though in developed nations. It may not all be due to migration though. It is also thought that possibly nutrition, methods, etc. may also be a factor.

So, the genes do not get destroyed, but the people do not get any "weaker" so to speak. They become stronger by having more quality genes to choose from, the stronger genes cover up the weaker ones. Besides, it's not like she married some thug gangsta or some white trash country singer or some stupid athlete retarded liberal punk rock/pop singer, it's Seal.
 
Xev said:
Pardon if I get this a bit screwed, I'm drunk.
Click to expand...

You're always drunk.

Wish I knew you back in high school. I've got a roofie with your name on it *wink*


PS - I'd like to see a study comparing those that outbreed and those that don't. I.E. the Amish, trash from the ghettos and deep south, etc. vs those that are more traveled and have a family history that doesn't tend to stay in the same place. But people within the US, we've already seen studies for those outside of the US.

Another really interesting thing is that Eskimos, no matter their IQ, tend to do extremely well on visual/spatial tests and tasks. I guess all the Eskimos that got lost in the snow and weren't able to get back home withdrew their shitty visual/spatial genes from the gene pool. Three cheers for natural selection.
 
Last edited:
One more thing. I didn't mean to say that the stronger gene ALWAYS covers up for a weaker gene, but it's the horse you'd bet on. Either way, with intelligence it has a tendancy to regress towards the mean. IQ has a correlation of about .5 in terms of heritability. So, if one parent had an IQ of 130 and the other an IQ of 150, the child would most likely have an IQ of 120, which is well above average. It also goes the other way though, like if one parent ahd an IQ of 70, and the other had an IQ of 90, the child would most likely have an IQ of around 90. They don't happen 100% of the time, but it's what you would bet on.
 
Wish I knew you back in high school. I've got a roofie with your name on it *wink*
Click to expand...

*Smiles*
I rarely drink but very lightly in the company of others. There's something too adolescent about it.

Anyways.

In the developed nations (US, Europe, Japan) the average IQ has increased by about 3 points per decade.
Click to expand...

That's a theory, but it has three flaws:

One is that it has no empirical evidence backing it. It is a way of interpreting data, but has no data (that you cited) backing it. I could easily claim that such increases in IQ are due to education.

Two is that you mention Japan. Now do you know anything about Japan?

Those fuckers are homogenous as shit. Most of them are of Japanese ancestry as far as you can trace, so you cannot say that mixing with other populations explains anything.

Three is that you don't set adequete parameters on "different". Germans and Irish are different, but less different than Germans and Filipinos.

Anyways, most of the geniuses of history - this is anecdotal, but anyway - have been of basically "pure" descent from whatever.

I'd like to see a study comparing those that outbreed and those that don't. I.E. the Amish, trash from the ghettos and deep south, etc. vs those that are more traveled and have a family history that doesn't tend to stay in the same place. But people within the US, we've already seen studies for those outside of the US.
Click to expand...

A family, though, is probably too limited a group.
In the US, I do not think there is any born American who can claim "pure" descent.
Wheras in Europe, there are countries like Holland and Sweden in which someone who claimed mixed ethnic ancestry would be a minority.
 
*Smiles*
I rarely drink but very lightly in the company of others. There's something too adolescent about it.
Click to expand...

Being drunk is something that one should do alone. And yes, I have a scotch and soda in my hand right now.
 
Hybrid vigor! That's what the name of it is. I couldn't think of it. Says it is also referred to as heterosis. Also found out about another study about different race parents. The two groups were kids where the parents are both white, both asians, both whatever. The other group was with kids who had parents of different races. The mixed race kids did better in school, were healthier, got through school faster, etc.. This was in spite of the negative effect on family relationships by those who look down on interractial marriage. Very interesting. I definitely suggest looking into it.

Outbreeding, between different groups, also reduces the chance that the recessive genes will line up because the more different backgrounds of the parents, the less chance of of the same lame recessive genes being present.

Bottom line is that interracial marriages breed better kids. I suggest you look it up if you're interested. It is VERY interesting. Hybrid vigor/Heterosis. This is the first post I found relating to hybrid vigor and humans:
http://www.drdaveanddee.com/marriage1.html

Many are about animals and plants. Shouldn't be hard to find more about humans though, including actual studies. I really encourage you to look into it android.
 
Touche, Xev. You make great points. I consider Japan more of less of an anomaly. I don't know enough about Japan or these theories to really make a substantial argument, nor do I really know if your points are valid. What I do know is what I've learned in psychology and biology classes and what I've read in text books and in studies I've found on the net.

I figure there is enough information out there that people can get an idea of what science supports and what is simply bigoted speculation. I mean, how would the Ku Klux Klan, or hardcore traditional asians/indians/blacks feel if they learned that interracial marriage is better for the human race? How would most of America react? Disbelief? Anger?
 
Xev said:
One is that it has no empirical evidence backing it. It is a way of interpreting data, but has no data (that you cited) backing it. I could easily claim that such increases in IQ are due to education.
Click to expand...

In my psychology classes I've learned that IQ is not based on education. The brain isn't like a muscle, contrary to popular belief you cannot "work it out" to make it stronger or faster. You can become better at a task, you can know more stuff, but IQ isn't really a measure of either of those. BUT, certain skills and certain knowledge can, and does, skew IQ for certain people/groups. It is not a perfect test, but it serves it's purpose in terms of the general populace.

I also agree that results may be skewed in Japan and even Europe. It has been proven that IQ tests are not applicable cross-culturally due to differences, in logic, language, culture, etc. The average IQ has increased in the US though. And we've stated there are likely other factors involved besides hybrid vigor, but it is true that hybrid vigor has had an effect. It would go against science to state otherwise. I'd love to throw out links and quotes and shit like that, but I don't really care to go dig shit up. Enough results popped up on Yahoo when I checked. The information is not difficult to find.
 
Oh, another thing that is very interesting to do with IQ. This isn't related to this thread, but physical attraction correlates with IQ. Unfair, isn't it? I forgot the correlation, I want to say .2, but I could very easily be wrong. Anyway, physical attraction correlates positively with IQ, as does height, as does how well people interact socially. I think there were others, but it's been a while. Now, there are smart short people, genius ugly people, and prolific assholes and bitches, but they are simply correlations, which are not incredibly strong.
 
blackmonkeystatue:
Touche, Xev. You make great points. I consider Japan more of less of an anomaly. I don't know enough about Japan or these theories to really make a substantial argument, nor do I really know if your points are valid. What I do know is what I've learned in psychology and biology classes and what I've read in text books and in studies I've found on the net.
Click to expand...

But you don't know enough about the subject to debate it.
Learning something in class is important, but being able to use that knowledge as a foundation on which to make decisions, debate and formulate theories is more important.

No appeal to authority.

Anyways, what people can ignore about 'hybrid strength' is that it does not mean that every hybrid has an advantage over every purebred. Dogs are an easy example to understand.

A cross between a miniature poodle and a karin terrier generally ends up at a disadvantage to a purebred of either in breed specific traits.

I should note that in my experience with dogs, purebreds are generally easier to handle and less neurotic. The problems with purebreds arise when inbreeding becomes a factor.

But you can have genetic diversity within a breed.

How would most of America react? Disbelief? Anger?
Click to expand...

Probably by trumpeting "diversity" again.

In my psychology classes I've learned that IQ is not based on education.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was. But one's scoring on IQ most IQ tests is affected by one's level of education.

Coffee:
Being drunk is something that one should do alone.
Click to expand...

'Xactly.
I have black russians and a pile of laundry to fold.
 
More great points Xev.

Xev said:
But one's scoring on IQ most IQ tests is affected by one's level of education.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? Or is the education level achieved contingent on one's IQ? That would explain it. Afterall, a mentally retarded person could not earn a Ph.D no matter how hard they tried. You could send them to Harvard and it would not raise their IQ one point. Not all cognitively proficient people choose to persue higher education, but that doesn't change what they are capable of had they the education. An IQ test isn't really geared towards education level like the SAT or ACT are, that isn't to say that education does not have an affect though. Everything has an affect on everything else to some extent.

IQ is pretty set from birth. While young children are highly influenced by their environment, but as one becomes an adult, about 80% of their mental ability (maybe the wrong word choice) has to do with heritability.
 
Many are about animals and plants. Shouldn't be hard to find more about humans though, including actual studies.
Click to expand...
Any about humans can be ignored, as there's just bound to be a lovey dovey agenda behind it (might not be in some cases but they can't be trusted).
Plus there's no need to, as in such a topic there is no significant difference between the species, plants included.

Or, rather than reading an article you can just listen to me as I will go into the nuances that scientists won't.
"Hybrid vigour" is a term used when you try to rejuvenate the previously ruined state of a breed or 2 by a mixing them together.
If a breed has been well bred, there is no such thing as hybrid vigour. For example, the gamebred american pitbull terrier.
Crossing such a dog with any other kind will merely make it less perfect. And this is because gamebred american pitbull terriers have consitently been bred strictly for function rather than form. You will not produce an improvement on them in their area of expertise by crossing them with anything, you can only maintain that level of specimen by breeding gamebred american pitbull terrier with gamebred american pitbull terrier. Inbred or not, it will be better than "going outside of the race".
People attempting to restore another breed to it's former glory will simply cross it with a gamebred pitbull or racing lines greyhound because these breeds are so immaculate that they will bring out the best in whatever they are crossed with if their inherent traits naturally lend themselves to the bettering of their mate.
Neapolitan mastiffs are commonly crossed with pitbulls. Neapolitan mastiffs descend from the greatest guard dogs the world has ever known, but the dog show world has made them sloppy shells of their former self. However, crossing them with the pitbull produces a dog similar to their ancestors, it has all the neapolitan mastiffs unique guardian traits in a functional body that can put them to use. And today this is unanimously THE elite protection dog, a cross breed. One half sloppy show dog that can hardly breathe, one half pit fighting dog that is possibly the most inept guard dog in the world because it naturally melts in the hands of man. But the hybrid somehow works.

Hybrid vigour is usefull in crossing show dogs bred for their appearance and producing something that can function.
This is because the breeds used were ruined.
Boar hunters in australia might cross an irish wolfhound with an english bullterrier.
Both of the parents were bred for the dog show, to look a certain way, and are completely useless, but hybridising will tap into the attributes in the ancestry of these dogs and hopefully produce a litter of pups that will be capable of hunting wild boar.

I'm actually in agreement with the pansies here. There is no question, that hybridising races will produce higher quality specimens of homo-sapien than the "purebreeds" of today (and I am a purebreed, so this isn't one of those insecure half castes making up crap to suit themselves).
But this is because all the purebreeds have been spoiled and allowed to stagnate via a lack of strict breeding selection.
Nothing would be better at being a white man than a pure white man strictly bred under white man conditions consistently through history. Nothing would be better at being a black man than a pure black man strictly bred under black man conditions consistently through history.

It's inaccurate to suggest that hybridising is naturally better under optimal conditions.
No, it's only better now because all the races are ruined. It's like trying to restore humans into some kind of functional animal because their such genetically fucked up freaks. How embarrassing.

Oh, and IQ's are higher in 1st world civilised countries because the populations of those countries tend to have alot of caucasoid and mongoloid blood running through them. And the caucasoid and mongoloid naturally excell at IQ tests which happen to suit the animal they are.
Negros in america doing better at IQ tests than negros in africa is because the negros in america are riddled with whitey and jew and asian blood.
Martin luther king made such an impressive stand unlike any of the slaves because he was laden with jew, and was thus really really adept at complaining.
 
Negros in america doing better at IQ tests than negros in africa is because the negros in america are riddled with whitey and jew and asian blood.
Click to expand...
Might also be because there are a lot of books in the US and they have this tendency to send people to school and teach them things. The poorest "uneducated" child in the US has a basic mathematical ability and can at least read (usually). Thus cognitive ability and pattern finding is set from a very young age. It's the sort of thing which led to your being able to sit down at your computer and type in how much you hate the people who gave you the luxury to do so.

Face it, lou lou... Martyn Bryant had a tenth of the intelligence you have (See? I can be generous), but ten times the guts you claim so fervently for yourself. Ed Gein was a quiet, polite unassuming man who had that exact level of detachment you say you have. Albert Fish took a great delight in doing all the things you say you'd like to do. Chikotilo... ah.
Walk down a dark alley in Thailand and see for yourself how those little asian eyes dont change one whit when they're talking about how they'll gut you if you don't hand over your wallet. Wish I could be a fly on the wall when you do exactly what you're told.

But you.. you're all talk, and placards.
 
Dr Lou Natic said:
Negros in america doing better at IQ tests than negros in africa is because the negros in america are riddled with whitey and jew and asian blood.
Click to expand...

I remember a certain argument about this. What it basically boiled down to was insufficient evidence though. Any tests, IQ tests in particular, cannot be applied cross culturally. That being so, it would be very difficult to develop an IQ test that was different as to fit seperate and unique cultures, but the same in difficulty and what they measured. They used tribal Africa for the example. Someone asked a tribes man something like if "if red deer and white dear ALWAYS eat at the same time, and white deer is eating now, is red deer also eating?" The answer was always "I don't knwo" because they had never seen a red deer. And it may have not been a deer, and may have not been in Africa, but you get the gist of it. It demonstrates the difference in logic we have. Also, is certain cultures IQ doesn't have the significance it has in our culture. How well someone can throw a spear may be the basis of someone's "intelligence" for lack of a better word. We only measure IQ because of how important it is to us. Land nav or swimming or hunting ability may be the core of another culture, which would invalidate an IQ test without even taking into consideration the cultural differences actually on the test.

But anyway, yeah that's a good point. This is just speculation, but I would also expect "Negroes" in the US to have a lower IQ score than others in the US because blacks in the US tended to just interbreed (and still do mostly) with a relatively small group, with very little outbreeding, for the last centuries. People who have immigrated also have small groups, but they've had a larger pool back home and came over more recently. The blacks who are here now are basically descended from slavery and I don't think there are too many Africans from Africa that come to the US, at least not in the numbers that they do from Europe and Mexico. That is just speculation on my part, but it would make sense.
 
LOL @ attempts to justify hybrid mixing - it does not create stronger individuals. In the cases where it is beneficial, it requires a period of Darwinistic sorting in order for the strong genes to separate from the weak through the survival (and non-survival, e.g. FAILURE) of individuals.
 
android said:
LOL @ attempts to justify hybrid mixing - it does not create stronger individuals. In the cases where it is beneficial, it requires a period of Darwinistic sorting in order for the strong genes to separate from the weak through the survival (and non-survival, e.g. FAILURE) of individuals.
Click to expand...

Not really. When two individuals from increasingly different backgrounds/regions/whatever mate, there is less of a chance that the recessive genes will line up and cause problems because the more different they are, the more likely that they will have different genes and completely different histories/blood lines. The strong genes do not really seperate from the weak. Both are present, but the more diversity you have, the less chance you'll have of recessive problem genes to both be present and, well, cause problems. You don't really get rid of them, but you can do your best to cover them up.

First cousins share 1/8 of the same genes (genetic kinship correlation of .125). When first cousins procreate, the offspring will have an average IQ decrease of about 7 points. This is a result of the lack of diversity. This bad things result from inbreeding, there is an increasing chance that the recessive genes will line up. It would follow that the more diverse the gene selection, the less chance this has to occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top