Insight from Asian Genes......

Has anyone noticed that TruthSeeker responds to posts claiming he is racist, but when I try to debate against him on his subject, he avoids me? I doubt what he said about being busy is true at all.

And even if so, can't be that hard to refyte my side, if it is as flawed as you think it is. The only reason one would avoid it, is like any other coward, because they know that it contradicts them in a manner that is harmful to their entire argument.

I expected to have a good debate here, no matter how easily you changed you cards.. But it seems all of your cards are faulty.


[Renrue]
 
iam said:
Yeah.. right. Read your original post. Multiculturalism and the melting pot for you are one and the same terms.
Not really. You, yourself, just said that, not me. You can't discuss this rationally because you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what the melting pot is. That's why you confused everything. I'm not stupid, multiculturalism and the melting pot are very different. It is you that cannot disitinguish between them. :rolleyes:

You are not for multiculturalism or the melting pot. You make me laugh.
And you make me cry. If you actually have an IQ of "one-forty", then mankind is doomed.

Cultural assimilation does not necessarily mean genetic assimilation which you propose.
Where do I propose that? You are just pulling this off your ass in desperation, eh?

You also have a hard time accepting with those differing than yourself, thereby you are not truly multicultural either.
Wow. Good logic. Great conclusion.... :p
Anyways... no. I have a hard time accepting that you hava an IQ of "one-forty". I have accepted those with different views countless of times. The only thing I aspect from those is some minimun degree of logic, which you unfortunately does not satisfy.
 
Renrue said:
Has anyone noticed that TruthSeeker responds to posts claiming he is racist, but when I try to debate against him on his subject, he avoids me? I doubt what he said about being busy is true at all.

And even if so, can't be that hard to refyte my side, if it is as flawed as you think it is. The only reason one would avoid it, is like any other coward, because they know that it contradicts them in a manner that is harmful to their entire argument.

I expected to have a good debate here, no matter how easily you changed you cards.. But it seems all of your cards are faulty.


[Renrue]
Tell me one reason why I should debate with you and then tell me what exactly you want to debate. I'm pretty busy with exams, immigration, taxes, a wife ready to give birth and valentine's day on top of that. Oh, and the freezer just broke and I'm losing $200 worth of food- something which I cannot afford, specially with a diabetic wife. :bugeye:

So... yeah. I'm busy...
Oh... and of course, I have to find out what the hell is wrong with my health, hopefully next Monday on the next exam, and have to buy stuff for my kid and prepare for baby shower as well...
...and so on...

So... yeah. What's going on in your life?
 
TruthSeeker,

I never denied you being busy fully. As you can read from my post that you quoted, I said, "And even if so, can't be that hard to refute my side, if it is as flawed as you think it is."

Tell me one reason why I should debate with you and then tell me what exactly you want to debate.
Well, you should debate, because my criticism are neither racist or entirely futile. Unless you cannot deal with some criticism (you are no god to be one hundred percent right, there can and perhaps will be flaws), you should avoid the SciForums fully (unless you are agreeing on a subject in another thread).

And what I want to debate? Isn't it already obvious. I guess you never even bothered to read my post. If that is the case, then how are you one to ignore it, if you have no idea what it is about!

With all things said, maybe you could review my post a couple pages back. Yes, the ones you ignored. If you still think I am spewing nonsense, then tell me how it is so, for I see it is quite relevant. PhDs are not needed to question, for they never existed from the beginning of time.


[Renrue]
 
Last edited:
Well i am just trying to get some of the details accross, of how genetic can be effected by customs, and behaviors such as eatting, and how that can effect a major population.
even so it would seem that this food problem is a issue world wide effecting the genetic stablity of the world population. So i mentioned as well that maybe the world health organization and united nations should focus a education program, directed at china and asia as asia has a high population density and china has laws that effect propagtion or reproduction.
It is important to have a simple chart that can be used as a referrence.

In other points it should be mentioned again that larger number of people is not nessacary a protection from inbreeding and genetic issues which threaten the stature of a population.
In general to compete with the broad inbreeding rate there must be a birth of four children per female, as the rate of disfunction is two to one, one normal sibling per two abnormal siblings, therefore the female must produce one more child without disfuntion to match the disfuction of inbreeding rate. the fourth birth is not always without blemish and so the problem can be difficult.(called Runaway).

None the less there are probably areas more prone to inbreeding that china, such as island countryies,and remote areas.

The base of such a rate of inbreeding could be inferred from the event forces effecting the genetic bases, but it follows general reasoning, to isolation and socialization with other groups effecting the gene pool.. migration ect...


DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
Renrue said:
And what I want to debate? Isn't it already obvious. I guess you never even bothered to read my post. If that is the case, then how are you one to ignore it, if you have no idea what it is about!
We have debated many things. It hasn't been a small debate, you know? What one thing do you want to talk about?
 
*Sigh* Have it your way.

TruthSeeker,

Before we begin, I would like to retract my statement pertaining entirely at "incest" (even though you mentioned it quite a lot).
TruthSeeker said:
I never said incest. I said within the limits of the country. Incest is a possibility, but not the only one. :bugeye:
Alright, "within the limits of a country." Replace all the times I said incest with that. My stance changes none.

TruthSeeker said:
We all look like monkeys in one way or another...
Okay, so it is NOT JUST East Asians? Correct? So do you agree (in accordance of equality) that caucasoids resemble monkeys as much as East Asians do?

This will be as far as I go, I want to get some answers step by step without going overboard with several topics within a post. This will save you some time, so there will be no reason for you not to be able to answer such a short post.


[Renrue]
 
TruthSeeker said:
Not really. You, yourself, just said that, not me. You can't discuss this rationally because you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what the melting pot is. That's why you confused everything. I'm not stupid, multiculturalism and the melting pot are very different. It is you that cannot disitinguish between them. :rolleyes:


And you make me cry. If you actually have an IQ of "one-forty", then mankind is doomed.


Where do I propose that? You are just pulling this off your ass in desperation, eh?


Wow. Good logic. Great conclusion.... :p
Anyways... no. I have a hard time accepting that you hava an IQ of "one-forty". I have accepted those with different views countless of times. The only thing I aspect from those is some minimun degree of logic, which you unfortunately does not satisfy.

I don't have a minimum degree of logic? I'm pulling this off my ass in desperation? Why do you consistently project your own failings onto others?? I'm a hell of a lot more intelligent than you can even possibly grasp.
Your premise and argument from start to finish is BOGUS. ENTIRELY.

I have accepted those with different views countless of times.

You twist, you twat. I didn't say you don't accept those with different views and you know it. I said you don't accept those who are different than you. Thats why you want genetic assimilation. Asians are inbred and further bullshit. They need help and your nonsense continues....
 
Renrue said:
Alright, "within the limits of a country." Replace all the times I said incest with that. My stance changes none.
Ok. So what is wrong with my argument? Have you looked at the evidence?

Okay, so it is NOT JUST East Asians? Correct? So do you agree (in accordance of equality) that caucasoids resemble monkeys as much as East Asians do?
No. Does that mean that asians look a lot like monkeys? No, that's not what I'm saying either. What I said is that they preserved some genes that some other people didn't preserve thanks to their geographical isolation. But I'm not talking about millions of years here, I'm talking about a few thousand. So that's little difference.
 
"I was observing them yesterday and for the firts time I noticed something very interesting which gave me some new insights. I notice that the shape of their heads is very peculiar and extremely similar to monkeys (no offense...). Urangutans and chimps seem to be the most common ones..."

In your tone, you applied this statement to all Asians, and that they all look a lot like monkeys.
 
WhisperBlade,

Exactly where I was aiming at. However, some time between the debate, TruthSeeker began changing his original outlook. Either he has a hard time grasping one subject, or he knows he was wrong, in which he is subtly changing his argument to make it seem right.


[Renrue]
 
Whassup? The shape of an asian's head is indeed different. It is well known as "high cheeck bones" amongst other features. So what's wrong with that?
 
The average person is subject to about 4,014,489,600 of those event forces effecting the genetics (DNA) in daily activity.
4,014,489,600 is the number of event forces per sq. mile.
There are approximatly 5,760,000 event forces acting on the human body at every moment.
The migration of a human on foot is about the area of one sq. mile, meaning the mojority of daily activity will be with in that sq. mile, it is most likly that through adolescents untill adult hood (purbity12-16)this will be the range of area, and there fore growth and genetic adaption that can occur will be subject to the 4,014,489,600 event forces of that sq. mile. As the event of genentic adaption is momentary the genentic adation that will occur will be one of 5,760,000 event forces acting on the body at the moment of occurance, but it will be within the 4,014,489,600 event forces of the sq. mile range.
The more people in one sq. mile will be subject to the same event forces and show more simularity in genetics, a sequence of genetic code is more than likly to exist amoung them.
A individual that travels to the adjenct sq. mile may exsperince a change in gentic sequence as the event forces of that area are different,when cell duplication occurs a genetic adaption of a signle base may occur.
A sequence of genetic bases may be more responsive to a adjacent sq. mile than its own sq. mile showing a increase in preformance.
The avgerage ape, or gorilla moves about 2,000 ft in migration per day, the event of contiuned migration result in a random effect of event force, gentic adataption may be continous resulting in genetic diversity that preserves the group in migration.

The number of event forces for the world
790,603,947,048,960,000 World surface
560,703,762,432,000,000 Water surface
232,719,962,112,000,000 Land surface

As can be seen there are more event forces in the oceans of the world than on land which defines that there is more genetic diversty in the oceans than on land.
for humans the human genome is responsive to the sq. mile,( a little bit larger than the mile) 28,000,000 sq. ft?, where individual bases are responsive to just about the sq. in., Because the human genome is responsive to the sq. mile, a estimate can be given that individual difference most likly can occur or begins to occur per mile, and exstends in simularity to the range of about 72 miles sq.miles reacing a difference about 50,000 sq. mile. genetic survial would be dependant on a human habitat range of 72 sq.miles and a population of about 50,000 person, all things going well, with genetic exchange. A increase in the number of humans to the area greater than 50,000 would increase the inbreeding rate as well.

Genentic sequence from other regions of the world may be more responsive to a another area allowing higher preformances, a new order of sequencing begins. as long as the template exist there will exist a robust preformance, secondary generation may be less robust but allow for reinvention of robust nature in the genetic sequencing.
So immagration is a benefit to a homogenous population, the adcvance of gentics may lead to immagartion rules that only allow immagration from certain areas of the world which may prove to be dicrimnatory and predjudice, against certain groups.

This defintion of event forces is preliminary, as certain effects of bases in sequence and there order of change as they are only 4 bases is yet to be completly tallyed, however the occurance of event forces do define the forces that act upon the gentic bases that cause changes in sequence. Therefore in this analogy of event forces it is a inference to calculate the effects of inbreeding.

DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
China (mainland) 3,691,506 sq. miles divided by 50,000 sq. miles = 73.8 distinct different groups, that may cross mate.

51,270.9 subgroups (at 72 sq. miles)

WORLD
1,159.4 Distinct Groups
805,138.8 Subgroups
DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
Last edited:
Well Whisper blade
Consider this, it seems that a issue was rasied about the simularity of monkies to humans, using the circumstances of event forces that actually cause bases to skip or change in the gentic sequence, it may be possible to determine how long that genetic change may have taken.
monkies are considered to be 5 percent differnt than humans that about 300,000,000 bases, or the combined differnce of one chromosome.
As the greatest change occurs during migration, or during earth changes one or the other is most likly the ogrinal cause of the difference between humans and monkies.
In the general assumption we would have to assume that humans where more migratory on foot than monkies resulting in the genetic changes, and monkies had a more sedimentary life. say a home range of 72 sq. miles.
At a change of one base per 1 mile humans would have to travel 300,000,000 miles to make the 5 percent difference.
At a change of 100 bases per mile humans would have to travel 3,000,000 miles
At a change of 10,000 bases per mile humans would have to travel 30,000 miles
The distance from say hong kong to the congo of africa is say 10,000 miles which would suggest a change of 30,000 bases per mile.
A change of 30,000 bases suggest a very active growth rate, a high reproductive rate or a very hard labor effort to exist per mile, or a very active rate of change in earth enviroment such as geopgrahic changes,magnetic feild, or thermal enviroment.
Overall the difference in groups of human had to occur in one motion as they advanced in genetic adaption from monkies.
which almost puts the change in one short time period, defining as well the change of 30,000 bases per mile, some might argure 100,000 years for such a change, incontrast i would say less than 5,000 years, at say 10 years habitat per mile it would account for 100,000 years either to asia or from asia, but this would be slower than present migration of monkies, as humans developed bi pedal the migration and adaption must have occured rather quickly, at say 72 days habitat time per mile or the development of complete sperm cells, it would take 2,000 years to make migration of 10,000 miles.

It seems in order for the genetic change to make its effect the sperm cell must have been subject to changes of event forces greater change, whcih would shorten the time to even less. say 400 years? (speculation).

If Asians where to have retained genetics or features that are more closely veiwed as related to are near cousins the monkey then it would seem that migration would have to have started in asia rather than africa. which reverses the theory that humans migrated from africa and then to the rest of the world.


DwayneD.L.Rabon
 
iam said:
I'm a hell of a lot more intelligent than you can even possibly grasp.
If your IQ is only 140 that is hardly anything to boast about. I mean, do you realise how many millions of people are smarter than you? Unless you are a proper genius, not a pretend MENSA type genius, then it's probably best just to keep quiet about it.
By the way, it does seem as if you mainly wish to attack TruthSeeker for the sake of having an argument. He has posted some weird views, and delivered them in a sometimes haphazard manner, but I suspect he is not inherently racist. Why don't you try listening to what he says he believes, rather than spending half your posts telling him what he thinks?

Truthseeker, I still think you just lumbered out with an idea, without much thought, got called on it, tried to defend the indefensible, then got painted into a corner. Am I close or not?
 
Ophiolite said:
If your IQ is only 140 that is hardly anything to boast about. I mean, do you realise how many millions of people are smarter than you? Unless you are a proper genius, not a pretend MENSA type genius, then it's probably best just to keep quiet about it.
By the way, it does seem as if you mainly wish to attack TruthSeeker for the sake of having an argument. He has posted some weird views, and delivered them in a sometimes haphazard manner, but I suspect he is not inherently racist. Why don't you try listening to what he says he believes, rather than spending half your posts telling him what he thinks?

Truthseeker, I still think you just lumbered out with an idea, without much thought, got called on it, tried to defend the indefensible, then got painted into a corner. Am I close or not?

My intention was not to boast, though it might have appeared as such. I never claimed to be an Einstein. I am a member of the Colloquy society, not Mensa.
 
Ophiolite said:
Truthseeker, I still think you just lumbered out with an idea, without much thought, got called on it, tried to defend the indefensible, then got painted into a corner. Am I close or not?
Does it look like I ever intended to have a serious discussion? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top