Scientific Racism

A peer reviewed publication to support your assertions will suffice; failing that, further trolling in the same vein will result in a temporary ban.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thinking about this further I consider your infraction to be the result of racial insecurity on your part.

Any white person knows from their daily experience that they do not give birth to darker skinned children. If they did there would never have been such a thing as white people in the first place.

You have asked me for proof that there is a sun in the sky.

If you ban me I'll take my place with the other martyrs.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well,come back in 2,000 years deep thought, and let me know if you have observed such an event or not. You are apparently trying to talk about evolution, without actually knowing that it operates on long time scales.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a bullshit infraction this is.

 

Fuck the "peer-reviewed" paper. I have never heard of two white people giving birth to anything other than white kids. That's called reality.

 

65, tops. LOL. Kidding. It's more around 104 for an average American male. Which is pretty sweet, it means you're not retarded. Then again, education is an important factor that can raise the IQ.

 

Fraggle,

Stating that white people do not give birth to black people is an extraordinary assertion?

Presumably then, stating that white people do give birth to black people is not an extraordinary assertion?

I think I'm beginning to understand what black people have to go through in America now.

 

I am darker than either of my parents, in skin tone. I look very much like my uncles on my mother's side, with my father's dark hazel eyes among other features (my mother is dark haired and blue eyed).

One of my sisters is red/blonde haired and green eyed, with light, easily burned skin.

I would have a definite health and likely reproductive advantage in Egypt, barring civilization's aid. She might very well have a similar advantage in Scotland. I tan very easily, do not burn much. She burns quickly and painfully.

There is also curly hair, recessive, in my family - a couple of the blond kids have what amount to afros, like Art Garfunkels only lighter colored. I probably carry some of that genetics.

So it's possible that within three generations of myself and my progeny choosing mates similar to oursleves in Egypt - avoiding the burned, freckled, unhealthy albino types - my own great grandchildren might be dark skinned, brown eyed, and curly haired: all of them. On the same mate-choosing principles, my sister's great-grandchildren could very well be light-skinned, green-eyed, and straight haired: all of them, in Scotland.

Would these grandchildren then be of different races?

 

Iceaura,

Your going to have to forgive me if I don't believe you.

I've heard white people say this rubbish before because they are trying to convince themselves they can produce black people or be black people.
I remember a white guy where I used to work who'd swear he was born darker than his brothers, he used this as some kind of psychological self-justification for becoming the follower of an American Indian religion. Amazingly this guy married a woman in California who he claimed was part Native American but to me they both looked plain white. He used to say, "well she's lost a lot of her color now but she was much darker when she was younger". To prove this he'd show around a photograph of her as a child which was basically a dimly lit sepia toned imaged so you couldn't make head nor tail of it. LOL.

Tragically the guy had real problems accepting what he was because he felt ashamed to be white. So he fantasized a way out by creating a false self which was born 'dark'. In the light of day and reason he was a white man straight up.

(PS: according to genetic scientists it's straight hair that's recessive not curly.)

 

How the hell is the assertion 'White parents cannot produce black children' racist? I mean, WTF? Looks like another case of extreme PC at sciforums.

By the way, when is Fraggle going to quote journal articles to support his extraordinary claims? Oh wait, sorry, he's not expected to. I wonder why not?

 

Any researcher knows that this is bullshit since you can indeed go from light skin to darker skin, or any colour of skin.

Your silly assertion is that white skin is an end state of evolution. And that is simply not true, but merely racist bullshit. An extension of 19th century racism where the 'white race' was the master race and africans a intermediate between white people and monkeys. There is no goal towards anything in evolution and a lot of things can actually be reversed.

Similarly you can go from being without hair back to hairy in evolution. It happened many times before in evolution too. See the mammoth for instance.

It would have been nice if you just would have read for instance wikipedia.

As you can see from this line of reasoning there is no reason why someone couldn't genetically alter the control of melanin production to raise it.

Note: more abundant. Not absent.

As in under genetic control. As in reversible.

So please do not confuse racist bullshit ideas with science. What makes sense to a racist has nothing to do with reality.

 

Monkey,

Evolution doesn't go uphill. Your white and your not going back to black. I never said anythign about 'end state of evolution' and you damn well know that. I said white skin represents an information loss and every single shred of genetic evidence supports me in that conclusion.

Now you bring up genetic engineering because you know damn well your argument is a lost cause and nature doesn't reverse what she's done so your going to try and do it yourself. The dinosaurs are not going to make an encore.

Evolution is subtractive not additive. Evolution = information loss. Life is getting smaller... that's been natures way since the beginning. There's not one shred of evidence to show that evolution is additive and that scares the sh*t out of you so you resort to calling me a racist don't think I don't see your sly little tactics here.

And don't start bringing up no mammoths either. You know we weren't around to observe any of that so it's possible to invent any bullsh*t theory to prop up the current status quo and make it look like its always been that way.

 

So you're saying that white skin is a result of evolutionary degeneration?!

LOL. Awesome. If anything, such a statement is racist against whites. Should be interesting to see whether you receive an infraction.

 

Nope. Why should I?

You wanted an example. I gave you one.

It's a big family. We do resemble each other, as a group, but vary quite a bit, as individuals. I am the only one darker than either parent, overall. I'm not in the least racially "black". There's some red in the family - a type of genetic heritage the racists (you are one of them) seem to have a hard time handling in general.

I'm sorry, but that's stupid. Back to the books with you, paying better attention next time.

Keywords: mutation, allele, frequency.

 

One other thing that gets ignored in these attempts to show racial superiority based on IQ tests is that people in the Northeast US score higher than people in the South. In fact in a large in 1945 test, median scores for black in northeast states were higher than median scores for whites in nine southern states.

 

My skin is not going darker, because I live in Finland. There is hardly any sunlight here. It would be pointless to go darker. In fact it would rather be detrimental. Moreover, I received my genetic combination of my parents. This cannot be changed. My general phenotype has been determined during the merge of sperm and egg.

Interestingly some of my cells are protesting my light phenotype and are in fact going black. They are under mutation and doing now exactly what you said was impossible. Going from white to black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(skin_marking)#Cause

Oh dear, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't know you were dyslexic. I did not bring up genetic engineering.

Evolution is information loss. Oh dear, I'm an evolutionary biologist (evo-devo) and I hear this for the first time. It's time to correct the text book because a racist has exposed the truth: evolution is loss of information.

Or you are simply a racist who has no knowledge of science.

One of the main trends in evolution is the creation of information. Additional information. The most common mechanism to do this is duplication of existing genes, or even chromosomes and altering the duplicate in order to create novel function.

Mammoth hair.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Fraggle,

There is no such thing as 'Indo-European' people. You are confusing a linguistic term with a racial designation. The whole concept of an 'Indo-European' people was created by racists in the 19th century as part of a 'rise to power' manifesto which resulted in the master race. The Nazis were heavily into the idea of 'Indo-European' people and stole much of their symbolism from India. Indo-Europeans as a race never existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_people

I thought I'd already mounted a significant challenge to your Baltic-Lithuanian-Bengali theory in the Tasmanian Aborigines. Your theory depends upon a totally subjective interpretation of historical events which is not scientific at all. Tasmania is practically a perfect laboratory for the very discussion we are having. It has a climate similar to Britain. The first people onto the island were the Aborigines and they stayed there until European settlers arrived 40,000 years later. That's way over the 100 generation mark you postulated and they haven't changed a bit.

 

Fascinating. You know exactly what their skin colour was like 100 generations ago. Remarkable. Perhaps you have some photographs of them in your personal collection, stored next to the key for your time machine.