Thanks for your honesty.But the link is definitely not to a racist website.
I can't believe how many of these "moderators" feel the need to lie as some kind of form of debate.
Thanks for your honesty.But the link is definitely not to a racist website.
I think willy brings up a valid point. Sexual selection may have been the dominant force that created the superficial differences between races.
Well I'm sorry dude. I didn't catch the UC link. I read through as much of the stuff as I could stomach and it certainly seemed like a pseudoscientific approach to racism. I removed the infraction. But as far as I'm concerned you're still skating on thin ice because virtually everything I've seen you post is a blatant attempt to establish a beachhead for racism on SciForums. It ain't gonna happen.Thanks for your honesty. I can't believe how many of these "moderators" feel the need to lie as some kind of form of debate.
I posted this thread because I got a infraction for saying:I don't really understand the point of this thread.
I posted this thread because I got a infraction for saying.....
Dominant traits - like dark skin and eyes in humans - don't require sexual selection or inbreeding.
It's recessive traits - like strange eye colors, yellow hair, and translucent skin - that need things like sexual selection or inbreeding.
I'm not following that. Why would it "change" into a form that hides its competition from selection pressure?fo3 said:It seems logical that if a certain recessive trait is very beneficial to its bearer and it stays in the gene pool for a long time due to only sexual selection, it will eventually change to a dominant trait, to enable sexual selection concentrate on other potentially beneficial traits.
Inbreeding is like what happens with the European royal families.