VABills Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Stupid q, but if blonds & blue eyes are on their way out, wouldn't that signal that they are genetically recessive? I'm not really a member of any acronym type of a club, so I'd like to find out the allure of preserving recessive genetics of species or subspecies. 345681[/snapback] I have pretty blue eyes.
Pac_Man Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 NO mainstream historian I've ever read (dozens, maybe hundreds) has ever indicated that. You claim to have read an entire book? Cover to cover? Interesting . . . But the mainstream consensus is that the Holocaust didn't truly get underway until the Nazis realized they were going to lose the war. I've also read that the American bomber pilots were ordered not to bomb the rail lines leading to the concentration camps. So your attempts to make FDR look like a saint for caring oh-so-much about the innocent Jews fall a little flat, don't they? I don't question it at all. You've demonstrated ("stated" would be more accurate) your pro-Nazi, anti-"liberal genocide" () attitude, and it's not the least bit surprising that a Nazi supporter would be "anti-bolshevik" or against the "syphillitic" FDR, as the Nazi propaganda went. Your dishonest attempts to broaden the definition of "Nazi" are feeble. First, it was anyone who opposed interracial marriage. Now, opposition to communist genocide--opposition to genocide, for crying out loud--is advanced as further evidence that I'm a "Nazi supporter." Your posts--hardly a fountain of brilliance and enlightenment to begin with--are growing increasingly insane. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? I said that most racists were honest and open about it: they opposed it based on the honestly stated belief against defiling THEIR race with human "subspecies". You, on the other hand, dressed up your racist beliefs with the tried-and-true "I love all races, that's why I don't want them mixed with mine" nonsense that you stole directly (damn near verbatim quotes) from Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Party philosopher and formulator of Nazi racial theory. Let me get this straight: you're more willing to call me a Nazi because I asked for respect for all races than you would have been had I preached racial arrogance? You don't expect anyone to take you seriously, do you? I see lots of people opposing interracial marriage...you're the only one I see putting it in the same terms of "racial purity" and "marital genocide" as a threat to Aryan traits that you'll see in Nazi literature. 345652[/snapback] You seem much more eager to express your own messed-up views than to listen to the views of others. Did you actually ask these others why they opposed interracial marriage? Of course not; or if you did, they probably feared (correctly) that you'd rip their heads off with irrational hate if they said something you didn't happen to agree with. Please believe me when I say your conversational style--or lack thereof--is ill suited to getting others to open up.
GG Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I have pretty blue eyes. 345690[/snapback] Die, Kitty!! (or at least in 15 years)
VABills Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Die, Kitty!! (or at least in 15 years) 345693[/snapback] 15 years? I plan on being around a lot longer then that.
Pac_Man Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Stupid q, but if blonds & blue eyes are on their way out, wouldn't that signal that they are genetically recessive? I'm not really a member of any acronym type of a club, so I'd like to find out the allure of preserving recessive genetics of species or subspecies. 345681[/snapback] Some genes are dominant, others recessive. So if a person with tall genes marries a person with short genes, the resulting children will either be tall or short, depending on whether the genes for tallness or shortness are dominant. Merely because a gene is dominant or recessive doesn't mean it's good or bad. The reason why you may have heard bad things about recessive genes is because it's a bad idea for siblings to marry each other. There's a chance that both siblings are carrying recessive genes for some weird disease or deformity, and that a child will receive two instances of these recessive genes (one from each parent). The resulting birth defects are to be avoided; hence the social pressure against sibling marriages. Traits like blonde hair and blue eyes are also recessive. But anyone who thinks these are birth defects obviously hasn't seen a picture of Nicole Kidman.
GG Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Some genes are dominant, others recessive. So if a person with tall genes marries a person with short genes, the resulting children will either be tall or short, depending on whether the genes for tallness or shortness are dominant. Merely because a gene is dominant or recessive doesn't mean it's good or bad. The reason why you may have heard bad things about recessive genes is because it's a bad idea for siblings to marry each other. There's a chance that both siblings are carrying recessive genes for some weird disease or deformity, and that a child will receive two instances of these recessive genes (one from each parent). The resulting birth defects are to be avoided; hence the social pressure against sibling marriages. Traits like blonde hair and blue eyes are also recessive. But anyone who thinks these are birth defects obviously hasn't seen a picture of Nicole Kidman. 345703[/snapback] I'm obviously stupider than you, because I missed the inference of me hearing bad things about recessive genes solely due to their direct correlation to incest. I'll have to work a bit more on my writing ability or reading comprehension. I always mix up the two. Imagine that? I guess a MENSA member would know the difference. Back to my question, if someone can answer it. Doesn't natural selection generally dictate that recessive genes will eventually be rooted out by dominant genes? Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that dominant genes are probably better for the long term survival of the species? So, why the interest in artificially preserving the recessive genes? Or are you saying that as more dominant the genes populate the species, the higher the probability of Air Jordan-induced murders?
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Or are you saying that as more dominant the genes populate the species, the higher the probability of Air Jordan-induced murders? 345725[/snapback] Awesome.
Pac_Man Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I'm obviously stupider than you, because I missed the inference of me hearing bad things about recessive genes solely due to their direct correlation to incest. I'll have to work a bit more on my writing ability or reading comprehension. I always mix up the two. Imagine that? I guess a MENSA member would know the difference. Back to my question, if someone can answer it. Doesn't natural selection generally dictate that recessive genes will eventually be rooted out by dominant genes? Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that dominant genes are probably better for the long term survival of the species? So, why the interest in artificially preserving the recessive genes? Or are you saying that as more dominant the genes populate the species, the higher the probability of Air Jordan-induced murders? 345725[/snapback] I was trying to be helpful. I said you "may have" heard bad things about recessive genes due to the chance that an incestuous relationship will result in offspring receiving two copies of a rare gene that is both recessive and undesireable. I'd assumed your question was a legitimate request for information, and not some lame attempt to propound a pseudo-scientific theory you'd come across somewhere. My mistake. But if you want to believe that dominant genes are "superior" and recessive genes are "inferior" go ahead. Presumably, this means that someone with two copies of the dominant gene for brown eyes is "superior" to someone with two copies of the recessive gene for blue eyes. Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling.
UConn James Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I'm obviously stupider than you, because I missed the inference of me hearing bad things about recessive genes solely due to their direct correlation to incest. I'll have to work a bit more on my writing ability or reading comprehension. I always mix up the two. Imagine that? I guess a MENSA member would know the difference. Back to my question, if someone can answer it. Doesn't natural selection generally dictate that recessive genes will eventually be rooted out by dominant genes? Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that dominant genes are probably better for the long term survival of the species? So, why the interest in artificially preserving the recessive genes? Or are you saying that as more dominant the genes populate the species, the higher the probability of Air Jordan-induced murders? 345725[/snapback] Add to that there is no gene for height. It's a combination of several different traits. But I must be wrong, b/c no one is as smart as Pac Man. Natural selection merely says that the most advantageous traits will, over time, become more prevelent, but not that all others will disappear. The statistical curve can get very steep, but it's not very likely that blond hair, blue eyes or a dimpled chin will be wiped out of the gene pool, especially in a population as big as humans. Nature loves variation and frequent turnover. I didn't read all of the posts, but how in the hell did it get from We shouldn't give foereign aid to talking about genetics. Just goes to show the common devolution of these topics.
Ghost of BiB Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 This is like watching ping pong played with a basketball and two frying pans while in the middle of three hits of windowpane.
Pac_Man Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Seriously. Why are you talking to me about your monkey business? I don't give a fk what he's saying to you, or how it makes you feel, or whether he reminds you of all your high school wedgies. I really don't. He's an axehole and many people here know it. Your obsession with him is unnatural. If you're saying that I've given him more attention than he deserves, you have a point. Unfortunately, he's not the only one who's been programmed to have irrational hatred towards those who disagree with his own views about intermarriage. My purpose in addressing him is to eradicate at least some of this ignorance. So how do you propose to stop people from intermarrying? By persuading others to see race as I do: something indescribably wonderful that must be preserved. And this is the third and last time I'll ask, why? 345686[/snapback] Why would the world be better off if races were preserved? Because we do not understand what race is or isn't; and because it's wrong to destroy something irreplacable that we do not understand.
erynthered Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 This is like watching ping pong played with a basketball and two frying pans while in the middle of three hits of windowpane. 345767[/snapback] Whoooa! Mr. Natural, just passin thru, C-YA BTW, Nice analogy, I think
Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Why would the world be better off if races were preserved? Because we do not understand what race is or isn't; and because it's wrong to destroy something irreplacable that we do not understand. 345773[/snapback] Fine. Charlie Manson's moving in with you. Kurt's now decided we should stop nature. We're gonna be supersuccessful with that.
GG Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 I was trying to be helpful. I said you "may have" heard bad things about recessive genes due to the chance that an incestuous relationship will result in offspring receiving two copies of a rare gene that is both recessive and undesireable. I'd assumed your question was a legitimate request for information, and not some lame attempt to propound a pseudo-scientific theory you'd come across somewhere. My mistake. But if you want to believe that dominant genes are "superior" and recessive genes are "inferior" go ahead. Presumably, this means that someone with two copies of the dominant gene for brown eyes is "superior" to someone with two copies of the recessive gene for blue eyes. Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling. 345764[/snapback] Sorry, don't have much time for a fuller response, as I'm studying the chapter on quoting people for my TOEFL exam. I actually asked the question to get an answer about the long term survivability of dominant genes, without any representation about superiority or inferiority of people who possess those genes. Instead I got a lame attempt to profound a pseudo-racist babble that you'd come across somewhere.
Pac_Man Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Add to that there is no gene for height. It's a combination of several different traits. But I must be wrong, b/c no one is as smart as Pac Man. Since you didn't read the whole thread, I'll tell you why I mentioned my Mensa membership. It was because another poster (whose name isn't worth mentioning) kept calling me an idiot, and I wanted not merely to shut him up, but to expose the dishonesty of his criticism. I believe that anyone at all can teach me something worth knowing; and I've been known to take the time to listen to people of different intelligence levels, social statuses, races, cultures, etc. Natural selection merely says that the most advantageous traits will, over time, become more prevelent, but not that all others will disappear. The statistical curve can get very steep, but it's not very likely that blond hair, blue eyes or a dimpled chin will be wiped out of the gene pool, especially in a population as big as humans. Nature loves variation and frequent turnover. True, but bear in mind that natural selection relies on adults overbreeding; and those less fit being killed off. Darwin's words (not an exact quote) were "multiply, vary, and let the fittest survive." Bunnies are an excellent example of this. They breed like, well, . . . bunnies. Those that are the quickest and most alert have the best chance of escaping from a cat's claws or a hawk's talons long enough to pass their genes onto as many little bunnies as possible. A gene that provides some advantage for escaping cats will, through overbreeding and population culling, gradually spread throughout the bunny gene pool. At present this is not the way things are happening, at least not for humans. Given the high probability of survival to adulthood (especially in the industrialized world) one's willingness to have many children is a far greater more powerful factor in determining one's influence on the next generation's gene pool than all other factors relating to fitness combined. For this reason, any changes in the human gene pool should neither be reflexively celebrated as "evolution" nor lamented as "degeneration." Instead, such changes should be examined on a case-by-case basis. I didn't read all of the posts, but how in the hell did it get from We shouldn't give foereign aid to talking about genetics. 345766[/snapback] You'll have to ask CTM that.
GG Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 ..... Those that are the quickest and most alert have the best chance of escaping from a cat's claws or a hawk's talons long enough to pass their genes onto as many little bunnies as possible.... 345796[/snapback] I get it. Thus, the human desire to kill each other over Air Jordans - to be quicker and more alert. This is way better than my TOEFL class.
Pac_Man Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Sorry, don't have much time for a fuller response, as I'm studying the chapter on quoting people for my TOEFL exam. I actually asked the question to get an answer about the long term survivability of dominant genes, without any representation about superiority or inferiority of people who possess those genes. That's not how you came across. You made it sound like the human species would be "improved" if there were fewer people with recessive traits like blue eyes. I'm not going to criticize your desire to improve the human gene pool; I'm just questioning the logic behind believing that dominant genes are always better than recessive genes.
Pac_Man Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 Fine. Charlie Manson's moving in with you. Kurt's now decided we should stop nature. We're gonna be supersuccessful with that. 345779[/snapback] Are you losing your touch, or just having an off day?
GG Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 That's not how you came across. You made it sound like the human species would be "improved" if there were fewer people with recessive traits like blue eyes. I'm not going to criticize your desire to improve the human gene pool; I'm just questioning the logic behind believing that dominant genes are always better than recessive genes. 345800[/snapback] There's that quote thingy again. I need to revisit the chapter that talks about putting stuff in quotes when "quoting" another person. I didn't realize that when asked a question about nature determining the survivability of one gene over another, I had imparted a value judgement on the "improvement" of the species.
Pac_Man Posted May 26, 2005 Posted May 26, 2005 There's that quote thingy again. I need to revisit the chapter that talks about putting stuff in quotes when "quoting" another person. I didn't realize that when asked a question about nature determining the survivability of one gene over another, I had imparted a value judgement on the "improvement" of the species. 345802[/snapback] If you don't like my use of quotation marks, fine. But that's still how you came across.
Recommended Posts