Having Nordish Ancestors doesn't make you Nordish, especially when you're mostly Armenid.

Well looks like ALL our ancestors are prolly nordish, So  making differences within races makes no sense. Whites have spanned the world. Yes, many nonwhites probably have a small amount of nordish genes deep down inside, but not ALL of them. You could be 1% nordish, but you're STILL not nordish.

And yes, differences in races makes sense. All races have differences, no matter if you're 99% Nordish and 1% other, 50% Nordish and 50% other, ect.

Within EVERY race theres a bunch a of ppl who are nordish. sometimes they are majority sometimes there are minority. all it proves then is that we are ALL related.No, it doesn't. It proves that Nords have spanned the world and touched every last inch of it. I'm not saying that EVERYONE, or even 10% of the world, has Nordic traits. Many great people DO have them, though, and many average, nonwhite people have had them too.

And how can there be a racial minority inside of a race?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Having Nordish Ancestors doesn't make you Nordish, especially when you're mostly Armenid.

---

---

Yes, many nonwhites probably have a small amount of nordish genes deep down inside

---

---

but not ALL of them. You could be 1% nordish, but you're STILL not nordish.

---

---

And yes, differences in races makes sense.

---

Your own theory confirms that there is the same genes in all races and the outward features are just randome expression.


-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

how do you they MOSTLY?

---

---

if they have the nordish features they are as nordish as any white with the SAME traits.

---

---

Not that small since they have also nordish traits.

---

---

how do you know. if you have the nordish traits doesn't that make you nordish?

---

---

if every race has nordish traitsn and orginate from nordish ancestors doesn't make much sense no. its like saying wait Im different than my brother because I look different even though our ancestors are the same.

Your own theory confirms that there is the same genes in all races and the outward features are just randome expression.

---

---

If you have red hair and a nordish facial type

---

---

you're probably majorly nordish. If someone is from Sub-Saharan Africa and has red hair but looks like a negro, he probably has a VERY diminutive amount of nordish genetics.

---

---

It doesn't take much to have a few Nordish traits.

---

---

You can be part Nordish or fully Nordish.

---

---

Once someone is mixed race, they are not ANY race at all.

---

you said yourself if a negro and a white have a kid the kid has a "negro chromosome" and a "white chromosome". so if he marries another one who is also mixed, then the 2 negro chromosomes should make a full negro! (and the 2 white chromosomes should make a full white!)

thats if theres really a  "negro chromosome"

---

they're mostly-Nordish-mixed race.

---

---

describe the facial type.

---

---

its all relative. maybe he has more nordish genes than you think but they are hidden since "negro genes" are dominant?

---

---

really? I thought those traits were recessive. especially the red hair trait.

---

---

how can you tell?

---

---

nope they just have both genes present. the genes did not disappear.

you said yourself if a negro and a white have a kid the kid has a "negro chromosome" and a "white chromosome". so if he marries another one who is also mixed, then the 2 negro chromosomes should make a full negro! (and the 2 white chromosomes should make a full white!)

thats if theres really a  "negro chromosome"

---

---

how will you KNOW they are not 100% nordish?

---

---

It varies a lot,

---

---

you can put bet a bank that he his genetic makeup is more Negroid than Nordish.

---

what you dont get is that what you SEE comes from a lof of NATURAL VARIATIONS in genes anyway. its true among africans, its true among europeans, I mean there's ppl called "black irish" because they have black hair and look different than other ppl in their family and look more italian. you could say its because th  e om fucked outside the regular gene pool but maybe its just that genes mix up differently and show up in DIFFERENT ways.

Look I got 2 sisters. We all mixed from the EXACT SAME parents. but our panrets are mixed arlready somewhat. Guess what for some reason I looked MORE latino. One of my sis looks MORE asian and my baby sis looks MORE white. I mean pple keep thinking we from different parents or something. (although we start to look more alike these days but when my sisters were born it was striking).

So according to your chart and theory ppl COULD say we from different races. well they'd be dead WRONG.

its simply that our genes (yeah its a bit more complex than a WHOLE chromosome) from the SAME parents mixed up in a slightly DIFFERENT way. And that ends up making us LOOK different even though if we took a gene test our DNA would TOTALLY show we genetically siblings (which is pretty close).

What happens when the chromosomes of parenst get together is more than just pairing. the gense do what is called a CROSSING OVER where the genes of one parent mix up with the genes of the other. THat mixing is RANDOM. theres no way to control it or predict what it will give.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Genetic_Recombination.php

 
the resulting chromosomes are NOT anymore "negro" or "white" or whatever. its a totally DIFFERENT chromosome than the either parents, and a DIFFERENT one for EACH sibling.

so EVEN INSIDE ppl of the SAME race theres a lot of variation. you might an irish kid with really very curly hair like a jew. you might get a german kid with darker skin than ANYBODY in the whole family even though everybody in his ancestry was 100% german.

all that happened is SOMEHOW the genes recombined DIFFFERENTLY in THAT kid and gave that LOOK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Irish

so that WHY some people may have blue eyes or red hair or whatever even if they were ALL from the SAME stock as the other ppl around them.

Not only that theres also MUTATIONS (change in the genetic code) that are just random. those are rare but they HAPPEN.

So the random person who's blue eye or red hair in a whole population of ppl or are brown eye or black hair MAY NOT BE because they "nordish" or w/e. MORE PROBABLY its because they just "freaks" (in a good sense not in a mean way) of genetics.

And prolly the fact that they STOOD OUT made it that ppl around them were more scared or respectful of them so they became natural leaders (or were killed off by their parents way before).

THAT's the explanation for the diffences. Its MORE SENSIBLE than aliens or nordish shit.

Post edited at 11:03 pm on Sep. 9, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

The chart doesn't work for mixed people. Hell, nothing does. NOTHING can be determined as mixed raced people have no definite characteristics.

---

What happens when the chromosomes of parenst get together is more than just pairing. the gense do what is called a CROSSING OVER where the genes of one parent mix up with the genes of the other. THat mixing is RANDOM. theres no way to control it or predict what it will give.

---

Our parents have TWO sets of chromosomes. Mixed children usually look a lot different from eachother than children of one race or subrace. My family looks a lot alike, but we all have different looks too, but nothing to ever doubt that we're related. My dads side is more Anglo-Saxon looking as my mom's is more Phalian. Though my dad has a Phalain-like build and hair like that of Keltics, his facial structure, like his parents, is almost definitely Anglo-Saxon.

My two brothers look a lot like me also. My older brother having a strong, Anglo-Saxon build as he's tall and muscular (naturally). I, on the other hand, have more of a Phalian-like build and I grow facial hair very well (since 6th grade, had to shave in 8th).

My younger brother is still quite young so you can't really determine these traits yet.

My mom is more like me (without the hair =D) than the rest of my family.

And, damnit, I got my overbite from my dad, yet $2000 for braces easily fixed this and now I get compliments by my dentist all the time.

---

THAT's the explanation for the diffences. Its MORE SENSIBLE than aliens or nordish shit.

---

To ANOTHER lesson about how we evolve and how mixing destroys it. (Keep in mind MANY people think that race-mixing is a GOOD thing and has VERY positive effects with NO bad ones...)

First, a primer on evolution. We evolve by mutation. We pass on to our children slightly modified versions of the genes we inherit from our parents. Mutations are usually recessive and harmful; only rarely is some mutation useful. If we get two copies of a recessive gene from our parents, then we will probably face illness, perhaps even not have a chance to be born.

Evolution is indeed "survival of the fittest". It is a race to reach reproductive age. People with bad genes often fail to achieve this. Our ability to reach this goal is dependent on our environmental adaptation. Are we resistant to disease, to the elements, to the pressures of our social environment? Then, we have the problem of finding a mate. This is sexual selection. These selective processes promote certain genes (that give an evolutionary advantage) and limit others (that are a drawback).

Let us consider a population that has lived for a long time in a given environment (natural, social) without admixture with other populations. Through selection, this population will have become adapted to its environment. But a certain number of recessive mutations would also have amassed. If the population is large enough, then recessive mutations can be weeded out. If it is small, then individuals are forced to intermarry and often recessive genes cause problematic individuals. The population health is poor.

What happens if we mix this population with another one that has evolved in a different environment?

First of all, we will have hybrid vigor. The reason for this is simple: an individual of "mixed" parentage has a far lesser probability of inheriting two copies of a recessive gene. This is because the chance of recessive mutations affecting the same gene in two populations is slight. This effect is attenuated in successive generations because recessive genes can now come from both parents. However a benefit remains as the "bad genes" are now a smaller part of the total gene pool (e.g., half if the two populations have the same number of individuals).

A second effect is that all the adaptations of the aboriginal population become less prominent in the genetic makeup of the mixed population. As an example, if a tall race of hunters mixes with a short race, then the population will lose some of its "height" adaptation that makes it effective hunters. Hence, in this case race mixture has caused some "harm" in the population's adaptability to its environment.

We now see that two effects are the result of race mixture: (i) improved health through hybrid vigor, (ii) reduction of both races' adaptations in the composite population.

There are many possible eventual outcomes of race mixture (if we don't take into account the cultural obstacles). One outcome is fusion. The two races eventually become one which is healthier (due to hybrid vigor) and which retains the helpful adaptations from both parent races. In this case, race mixture is a positive thing. This is, usually, only related to mixture within small populations unlike those of today.

A second possible outcome occurs if one of the two races is maladaptive to its new environment. In such a case the resulting population is less able to handle the challenges of its environment. As an example, the tall race of hunters becomes less able to follow the game if it mixes with short people.

The biological effects of race mixture are rarely dramatic. In some cases, like the Early Helladic population of Greece, the heterogeneous subracial elements fused to form a successful population (the Greeks) and the effects of effective fusion were visible in an increase in general health and vigor. In other cases fusion failed, e.g., due to the maladaptation of Native Americans to the presence of disease for which Europeans were well-adapted.

Now, how the Nordish people exist:
http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html

Look there.

Oh, and

---

So the random person who's blue eye or red hair in a whole population of ppl or are brown eye or black hair MAY NOT BE because they "nordish" or w/e. MORE PROBABLY its because they just "freaks" (in a good sense not in a mean way) of genetics.

---

http://raceandreason.110mb.com/files/Evolution_of_blond_hair_and_blue_eyes.html

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

The chart doesn't work for mixed people.

---

And since many white americans also have some indian genes it prolly fails for them too or have ancestors from england and italy and france and spain and whatever then it don't work for them either.

Maybe the only ppl your chart works for are some isolated blacks in africa and some isolated whites in europe and maybe some chinese.

Thats about it. For everyone else practically your chart fails.

---

Our parents have TWO sets of chromosomes.

---

It is true of ALL races.

---

To ANOTHER lesson about how we evolve and how mixing destroys it.

---

Thats the REAL lesson

---

If we get two copies of a recessive gene from our parents, then we will probably face illness, perhaps even not have a chance to be born.

---

That is WHY GENE MIXING is GOOD. That is why even among people of the same parents it happens. This is the result of natural evolution. The population that had more mixing going on SURVIVED better.

---

Evolution is indeed "survival of the fittest".

---

The only way to have PURE HOMOZYGOTE breeding happening EVERY time is if you mate with your own sister. We know how THAT ends up.

Otherwise there IS gonna be recessive genes that WILL reappear anyway in a population that stays closed up.

You know why the kings and queens and "nobles"  in europe kept having sick kids? because they kept marrying inside the same family and gene pool. If the genepool dont get fresh blood it just dies out. Plain and simple.

BUT if ppl mix with other ppl of a totally DIFFERENT gene pool theres a much SMALLER chance that those recessive genes will show up.

If you have a guy whos recessive with sickle cell anemia mixing with a girl who's recessive for tay sachs (the only way is if they different race because thse diseases are specific to some races only) the kids will be HEALTHY. (unless the kid start maryying their sister or something)

But if the guy recessive for sickle cell marries another girl who's of the SAME race the kid will have MORE chance of getting sickle cell.

So mixing with ANOTHER race (or someone really far from your own gene pool) REDUCES the chance of getting recessive genes.

So study THAT again and THEN you can come back with something. Otherwise you FAILED science.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

the chart doesn't even work for black americans since many of them are mixed anyway.  

And since many white americans also have some indian genes it prolly fails for them too or have ancestors from england and italy and france and spain and whatever then it don't work for them either.

Maybe the only ppl your chart works for are some isolated blacks in africa and some isolated whites in europe and maybe some chinese.

Thats about it. For everyone else practically your chart fails.

---

The majority of whites still have, at least, some TINY amount of nonwhite in them. But, it's so small that the chart still holds true. Since the average Negro in the USA is about 20-30% white, a lot of that chart wouldn't work for them, of course. But, in Africa, the chart would work for A LOT of them.

---

And the chromosomes cross over no matter what and mix up and different genes show up depending on how the mix is done.

It is true of ALL races.

---

---

Its not "destruction, Its ADAPTATION. the More mixed the BETTER ADAPTATION.

Thats the REAL lesson

---

---

Yeah so the MORE we are mixed the LESS likely we are to bump into the SAME recessive genes.

That is WHY GENE MIXING is GOOD.

---

Now, this could be a tall/short adaptability, or one involving your brain.

Hell, there could be two traits that work together to help adapt a person, one would weaken them if left without the other, therefore, to get the desirable effect, you would need BOTH of those genes. But, let's say one is recessive. If mixed, they will lose that trait (phenotypically) and will be weakened by the other. Positive occurence? I think not.

How about the fact that mixed race children have almost no chance of finding bone marrow or organ donors? How about that bi-racial Asian Americans are twice as likely as their monoracial counterparts to suffer from psychological disorder?

I could find more, but I shouldn't. Go ahead, mix races. I DO NOT CARE. If a white wants to, I'll let them. They should just know that it does good and bad to their kids.

---

That is why even among people of the same parents it happens. This is the result of natural evolution. The population that had more mixing going on SURVIVED better.

---

---

The MORE genes are mixed the fittest.

---

---

The only way to have PURE HOMOZYGOTE breeding happening EVERY time is if you mate with your own sister. We know how THAT ends up.

---

---

Otherwise there IS gonna be recessive genes that WILL reappear anyway in a population that stays closed up.

---

---

You know why the kings and queens and "nobles"  in europe kept having sick kids? because they kept marrying inside the same family and gene pool. If the genepool dont get fresh blood it just dies out. Plain and simple.

---

---

BUT if ppl mix with other ppl of a totally DIFFERENT gene pool theres a much SMALLER chance that those recessive genes will show up.

---

---

If you have a guy whos recessive with sickle cell anemia mixing with a girl who's recessive for tay sachs (the only way is if they different race because thse diseases are specific to some races only) the kids will be HEALTHY. (unless the kid start maryying their sister or something)

---

---

But if the guy recessive for sickle cell marries another girl who's of the SAME race the kid will have MORE chance of getting sickle cell.

So mixing with ANOTHER race (or someone really far from your own gene pool) REDUCES the chance of getting recessive genes.

So study THAT again and THEN you can come back with something. Otherwise you FAILED science.

---

My point is: Race mixing has good and bad.

If you're going to ignore the good, I don't care. You're already mixed, therefore, it wouldn't matter WHO you marry, would it?

And not all recessive genes are harmful. Most aren't.

But, you sit there and tell yourself you're healthy! I'm sure it makes you feel SO good about yourself!

And, by the way, Sickle Cell is desirable in many parts of Africa. As it's sometimes considered an adaption, they don't see it as bad.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

If I have, let's say, a great-great-great-Amerind Grandma, and the rest of my family was Nordish, that chart WOULD work for me, which would make me about 3% Amerind, an almost nonexistent amount.

---

---

The majority of whites still have, at least, some TINY amount of nonwhite in them.

---

If a brown looking person has more nordish than a white looking person will you call them nordish? Or will you STOP at how they LOOK?

---

But, it's so small that the chart still holds true.

---

---

The more mixing the better adaptation? HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

---

Your stupidity is so amazing and deep the only way to cure it is education.

---

Natural selection does not produce uniformity or perfection. Instead, it generates variability that persists when it helps a species to adapt to, and thrive in, its environment. It acts on phenotypes, not on genotypes, and it is not a process that always discards individual genes in favor of others that might produce traits better suited for survival. For polygenic traits, many different combinations of gene pairs may produce the same or comparable phenotypes. Multiple phenotypes may be beneficial or even neutral in terms of survival in a given environment, and there is no reason for such variation to be eliminated by natural selection.

Furthermore, natural selection does not completely or rapidly eliminate genes that produce traits unsuited for adaptation or survival. While some individuals with harmful traits die young or do not reproduce, some do reproduce and pass their genes and traits to the next generation. Culling out these genes may require several generations. In other instances, seemingly harmful genes may be retained in the gene pool because there may be circumstances or environments in which their presence would improve as opposed to compromise survival. For example, the recessive allele that causes sickle-cell diseases (sickle-cell anemia and sickle B-thalassemia, in which the red blood cells contain abnormal hemoglobin) may have had a role in survival in some parts of the world. Although people who are pure recessive for this trait become ill and die prematurely, those who are hybrid for the trait may have retained a survival advantage in areas where malaria was present because people who have the sickle-cell trait or anemia are immune to the effects of malaria. This phenomenon is called balanced polymorphism and is yet another example of the seemingly counterintuitive actions of natural selection. While the sickle-cell trait is not beneficial on its own, it was advantageous in areas where malaria was a greater threat to survival than sickle-cell diseases.

By definition, natural selection is an unending, continuous process. The popular understanding of natural selection as "survival of the fittest" is somewhat misleading because organisms and species with phenotypes most suited to survive in their environments are not necessarily the "fittest." Present-day examples of natural selection include the evolution of bacteria that are antibiotic resistant and insects that resist extermination with pesticides.

---

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2227/Genetics-Evolution-VARIATION-ADAPTATION.html

---

GENETIC DIVERSITY — EVOLUTION'S PALETTE

James A. Bailey, October 30, 2001

Species are the most recognized and protected units of biodiversity. Yet, we tend to ignore the importance of genetic diversity that is fundamental to species survival, and to the continued evolution of new species. Almost certainly, unique genes have been lost from very many species that have experienced substantial declines with isolated populations and local extirpations. However, for most species of plants and animals, there have been few or no studies to document this trend.

Small, declining or isolated populations will suffer from two related genetic problems: inbreeding depression and loss of genetic variation. The former has implications for short-term survival. The latter may limit long-term persistence.

Inbreeding (reproduction by closely related individuals) occurs in small and isolated populations. Inbred individuals are homozygous at many gene locations, allowing expression of normally recessive, deleterious genes. Common results are infertility, low survival rates and compromised resistance to disease. These results have been clearly documented in zoo populations and have been observed in several wild populations. In a decreasing population, inbreeding depression of reproduction and survival may accelerate a decline toward extinction.

In a particularly well-studied population of greater prairie-chickens in Illinois, isolated and small populations showed declining hatchability of eggs, correlated with their loss of genetic diversity. As a last ditch management solution for inbreeding depression, novel genes were imported with animals from larger populations in other states. Declining hatchability of Illinois greater prairie-chicken eggs was reversed by this costly translocation of birds. However, if the habitat problems of Illinois prairie-chickens have not been solved, we should expect the cycle of decline and inbreeding to begin again.

How large must a breeding population be to avoid significant inbreeding depression? This will depend upon the demographics of the population (normal reproductive rates, longevity, age at first breeding, population fluctuations), and on its breeding system (monogamous, polygamous). In addition, some species seem to have a greater "genetic load" of deleterious genes, exacerbating the effects of inbreeding. Lacking a careful analysis, a broad estimate is that inbreeding negatively impacts large-mammal populations of less than 100-300 animals.

However, populations barely large enough to prevent significant inbreeding depression will gradually lose the genetic variation that is necessary for continued evolution and adaptation to changing environments. To maintain genetic variation over long periods, populations of one-to-several thousands may be necessary. Moreover, studies have shown that populations of widespread species often contain subpopulations with somewhat different genetic compositions. As a species declines and its geographic range shrinks, subpopulations with their unique genes are lost and the long-term persistence of the species is compromised.

---

http://www.apnm.org/campaigns/wildlife_diversity/GENETIC_DIVERSITY.php

Try to read it. Read it ALL. There will be a test. But from what you show I doubt you even understand it.

Here is a blurp on race

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/16/R2/R134

It shows that many characteristics we associate with race come from ADAPTATION to environment. Thos individual with the particular genes that were adpated survived better. But the MORE the have different genes adpated to different types of encironments the BETTER adapted we become.

The black american population is not only well adapted to the climate of Africa at this point, it is also well adapted to ANY ctemprate or colder climate.

If any nuclear disaster occurs or any other natural disaster makes it so the climate change and environment changes are radical, then the MIXED populations will survive the best because they will have a WIDER VARIETY of genes to pick from.

Do you know why native americans were wiped out by disease brought by europeans? Because they were ISOLATED and had very similar genes for thousands of years. The Europeans had been exposed to Asians, African and arab contact. All the people that could have died of smallpox already did and those that survived had the genes resistant to smallpox. That is why even if they carried the disease with them they were not sick but got inidans sick. The europeans were MORE GENETIC MIXED than the native americans they met at that point.

THAT's the plain truth.

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

If you don't inbreed, you're pretty safe. Nowhere in my history do I, or any of my family, know of a mentally defective/retarded child,

---

Fact is  

1. Theres more to genetic diseases than just mental retardation. You guys might have had other genetic disease that you kept passing to each other and some you maybe know nothing about it.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

2. The fact that nothing bad has happend yet don't mean anything. The chance of a genetic disease showing up depends on random stuff. Its a rusian roulette. If you stay within your group and don't mix with people of other groups you have MORE chance of bumbing into the SAME racessive genes.  

Post edited at 2:11 pm on Sep. 13, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP

---

So you DONT believe in one drop rule right? Just making sure.

---

I don't think ANYONE believes that it's a biological truth.

---

Spanish people have some arab in them. How much of it has to be removed in time bofore you think they white

---

---

How about A Mexican? Many are white. But they have some mestizo blood. Are they white to you?

---

---

If a brown looking person has more nordish than a white looking person will you call them nordish? Or will you STOP at how they LOOK?

---

The following Moroccan man was tested to have 100% nordish ancestry:

He is white, no doubt. Is his skin pale? No. But, you can't confuse skin with race, can you?

---

We dont' know how SMALL or BIG till we do a real genetic test.

---

And genetic tests aren't 100% accurate anyway, especially ones that you can send DNA samples to. The numbers they give you can vary from 5-15%, depending on who you're testing with. Most human DNA is filler DNA anyway, many DNA testers probably just arbitrarily divided it up to say you are X% of this and X% of that. And if they're only testing your Y chromosome, you'll only find out your great-great-great..........grandpa's race.

---

Yes the more variation in genes the BETTER the adaptation to changes in the environment and the better the survival.

---

---

Your stupidity is so amazing and deep the only way to cure it is education.

---

---

First copy-paste job

---

Second off, isolating races forces them to weed out the weaker people that are less prone to surviving. Once all the people that can't survive die out, the rest, that HAVE the genetic makeup to survive give it to their kids. Their kids may inherit bad or good traits. The bad traits commonly cause them to be sickly or die, the good traits help them survive better. THIS keeps happening until these people are genetically changed so that they are more fit for THIS ENVIRONMENT than ANY OTHER PEOPLE.

---

Second copy-paste job

---

Race mixing destroys adaptations. WHEN will you understand this? It's so simple. Staying within your family is HORRIBLE too. There is a LARGE chance that you'll get a recessive, harmful trait, which is why I don't support inbreeding. Staying within your race/subrace/subracial division is NOT the same as inbreeding, and is VERY different. There is still some genetic variation, not much, but it still exists.

---

The black american population is not only well adapted to the climate of Africa at this point, it is also well adapted to ANY ctemprate or colder climate.

---

---

If any nuclear disaster occurs or any other natural disaster makes it so the climate change and environment changes are radical, then the MIXED populations will survive the best because they will have a WIDER VARIETY of genes to pick from.

---

Just because you're mixed race doesn't mean you're as adapted as your parents. I'm sure that 1/2 white 1/2 blacks are better at sprinting than blacks and better at swimming than whites. Oh, wait, didn't the Olympics disprove that?

The whole "mixed race people are adapted to more environments" is true. But, they're not as adapted as monoracial people to the climate and area that they adapted to.

---

Do you know why native americans were wiped out by disease brought by europeans? Because they were ISOLATED and had very similar genes for thousands of years. The Europeans had been exposed to Asians, African and arab contact. All the people that could have died of smallpox already did and those that survived had the genes resistant to smallpox. That is why even if they carried the disease with them they were not sick but got inidans sick. The europeans were MORE GENETIC MIXED than the native americans they met at that point.

THAT's the plain truth.

---

---

NOT including you you mean?

---

---

1. Theres more to genetic diseases than just mental retardation. You guys might have had other genetic disease that you kept passing to each other and some you maybe know nothing about it.

---

---

2. The fact that nothing bad has happend yet don't mean anything. The chance of a genetic disease showing up depends on random stuff. Its a rusian roulette. If you stay within your group and don't mix with people of other groups you have MORE chance of bumbing into the SAME racessive genes.

---

---

I don't think ANYONE believes that it's a biological truth.

---

---

while Asia and Africa will be, racially, the same as 100's of years ago

---

---

Therefore, I'd consider a white to be white.

---

---

If they have about 5-10% nonwhite blood, I probably wouldn't consider them white though.

---

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11018-genes-reveal-west-african-heritage-of-white-brits.html

---

Gene tests on a sample of "indigenous" Englishmen have thrown up a surprise black ancestry, providing new insight into a centuries-old African presence in Britain.

The research, funded by the Wellcome Trust, identified a rare West African Y chromosome in a group of men from Yorkshire who share a surname that dates back at least as far as the mid-14th century and have a typical European appearance. They owe their unusual Y chromosome to an African man living in England at least 250 years ago and perhaps as early as Roman times, the researchers say.

Mark Jobling at the University of Leicester, UK, and colleagues recruited 421 men who described themselves as British and analysed their genes as part of a survey of British Y chromosome diversity. To the researchers' surprise, they found that one individual in the study carried a very rare Y chromosome, called hgA1.

This particular variant has previously been identified in only 26 people worldwide, three African Americans and 23 men living in West African countries such as Guinea-Bissau and Senegal. "It's so distinctive, it really sticks out like a sore thumb," Jobling says of the chromosome's unique sequence. He adds that it is virtually impossible for this sequence to have coincidentally evolved in Britain.

The white British subject with the hgA1 variant, however, knew of no African family connection.

---

How about this?

---

Physical characteristics associated with race - such as skin or hair colour - do not necessarily reflect a person's genetic ancestry, a new study suggests.  
Our study makes clear the hazards of equating colour or race with geographical ancestry
 
A group of scientists - writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - have found that people who appear white may genetically be mainly African, while people who look black may genetically be European or Amerindian.

The scientists, from the University of Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Porto in Portugal, said their data indicated that, in Brazil, colour was a weak predictor of African ancestry.  

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," said one of the researchers, Sergio Pena.  

"Yet races do exist as social constructs," Dr Pena and his colleagues said.  

Colour roots  

The research took place in Brazil and on the island of Sao Tome, a former Portuguese colony off the African coast.  

Races do exist as social constructs
 
Brazil's population comes from three separate ethnic groups: the original Amerindians, Europeans, and Africans.  

These groups have inter-married and inter-bred, yet some Brazilians are popularly regarded as white, others as black.  

The researchers found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell apart - genetically - 20 men from northern Portugal and 20 men from Sao Tome.  

But the genetic differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair colour, the researchers found.  

Poor guide  

They next tested two groups - 173 Brazilians "classified" as white, black, or intermediate based on arm skin colour, hair colour, and nose and lip shape, and 200 men living in major metropolitan areas who classified themselves as white.  

The results threw up some surprises: maternal DNA suggested that even the "white" people had about 33% of genes that were of Amerindian ancestry and 28% African- indicating that European men often fathered children with black and Indian women.  

"It is interesting to note that the group of individuals classified as blacks had a very high proportion of non-African ancestry (48%) ," they wrote.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2585553.stm

Post edited at 7:16 pm on Sep. 14, 2008 by jakelong

-------
"Everyone helpin' each other whenever they can we makin' it happen, from nothin' to somethin'
That's how we be survivin'" - BEP