The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a simple mathematical equation, saying that barring outside effects or genetic drift, the proportion of a neutral allele will remain the same in a population.For instance, take a population of 1000 people. 50 have blue

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 1 per post.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 01:58:13 064ba4 No.11199

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a simple mathematical equation, saying that barring outside effects or genetic drift, the proportion of a neutral allele will remain the same in a population.

For instance, take a population of 1000 people. 50 have blue eyes (bb) and 950 have brown eyes (BB). If they start mating at random, the b alleles will not disappear, they will simply be shuffled among the whole population. You will get close to 100 people who are Bb, a few bb, and a lot of BB. Exact proportions are given by HWE: If p is proportion of B, and q is proportion of b, then p^2=0.95^2=90.25% people will have BB, q^2=0.05^2=0.25% people will have bb, and 2pq=2*0.95*0.05=9.5% will have Bb. So the number of people who actually have blue eyes will shrink from 50 to 2-3 (0.25% of 1000) but the number of blue eye genes in the gene pool will remain the same.

There are exceptions to this: If mating is not random (individuals prefer blue eyes or brown), if there is selective advantage (perhaps brown eyes see better), if there is migration from an outside population (a nearby tribe of 10,000 blue eyed people), if the population is small (since genes children get are ultimately determined by chance, it becomes probable that an unlikely sequence of children will make a gene extinct - this is called genetic drift) then HWE will be violated.

However, think of the entire human species. There is no migration, since there are no humans outside earth. The population is very large (you can work this out but basically genetic drift becomes insignificant at around 40 people). Humans do mate non-randomly, but the preferred traits are always white traits which are considered attractive (with the possible exception of white women who fetishize black men, but apparently statistics show even that is rare). Not all traits are equally advantageous, but again, traits associated with whites seem like they're stronger: Intelligence, being receptive to civilization, calmness, rationality and so on.

If anything, over time white traits would increase in proportion among the world human population, and non-white traits would decrease. If they are recessive, you wouldn't actually see many white traits in the population because they are masked by dominant non-white alleles, but the number of white genes would be very high. Occasionally a homozygous recessive child (with a white trait) would be born to heterozygous parents, and gain the advantageous white trait, whereas children of homozygous dominant parents would always be born with non-white traits and be less successful.

So why do we worry about white genes being diluted by race-mixing? Our good genes themselves will still be there, and they will only increase. They will simply not be visible at a glance. Even very rare recessive alleles can be easily selected for, because of the 25% chance of homozygous child from heterozygous parents. In fact, this is how evolution works - a single mutation arises, and if beneficial, rapidly gets selected and spreads through selection.

So why discourage interracial unions? Is it because culture is more important than genetics? Is it because a certain number of white (as in, homozygous recessive) people are required to keep the world from descending into chaos?

>inb4 jewish science
HWE is a very simple principle. You can "re-discover" it yourself with a few minutes of algebra.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:10:29 3752e7 No.11204

>>11199
This is a shitpost thread disguised as a "genetics" thread and it intentionally disregards known genetic and heredity principles.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:21:29 4e52f5 No.11208

File: 1428632488924.jpg (2.23 MB, 1920x1200, 8:5, 346982.jpg)

>>11204
Nope, I don't think so, post history is great, and technically (my STEM years are a while back) his shit is right even though I don't agree considering most of the recessive genes won't have much effect, they will be somewhat hidden inside. So especially if he's talking about visible traits that are important for mating, then his own theory defeats its own purpose, and also the fact that the genes seem to disappear with generations mixing semi-randomly as well (how to keep white traits alive if the visible ones disappear).

But I do think he has an interesting theory, and that OP might get refuted by other anons, sure it does seem like it's pushing the "immigration is okay" narrative, but I don't think dissenting opinions should be banned, even that kind of opinion, if they are backed, especially by science.

Also, whoever reported this, thanks, I even took the report's words to delete+ban the "why are you racist" shitty thread lol.

Enjoy your thread OP.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:21:40 3752e7 No.11209

>>11204
I'll verify why this is a shitpost detracting from the few other populations and genetics threads we have up.
First it is a copy pasta that used to be spammed on cuckchan literally at least twice a week even if it slid off the top.
Then it discounts the known hybrid depression between human races.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:28:09 064ba4 No.11213

>>11209
If you're seriously gonna bring up that, you should address hybrid vigor too.

FYI my position is that genes are complex and unpredictable, so mixing and matching genes from different populations may have both bad or good consequences, and genetics so far cannot tell which one is more likely.

>>11208
>tfw being sanctioned to stir up shit by BV
D-don't look at my post history! It's so embarrassing!

Anyway, yeah, I'm not even trolling. Just laying devil's advocate to see if anyone will come up with a decent counter argument to this.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:28:17 3752e7 No.11214

>>11208
If you didn't major in biology your stem years are irrelevant also the mere fact its an emotional hook and a copy pasta should be enough to delete it but in addition to the other threads that I know of at least two that include populations and genes it shouldn't be here. Leave this trolling to regular pol if it must be on infinity chan at all.

>>11199
The reason blue eyed genes won't remain the same is exactly because the few hybrids that are healthy enough to keep living will be somewhat like the K selected population and not reproduce like rabbits anymore meaning if hybridization between them continues with the r population and the hybrids continue being less r selected then just by that the genes in the population will decrease.

This all ignores of course the fact that Europeans have no reason to accept hundreds or thousands of years of chaos to form someones idea of a hybrid human race that is more equal between the extremes of the population.

The rest of the post ignores the fact that genes don't function as lone and independent units in most cases so creating a hybrid between populations distinct enough to be different but similar enough to produce viable offspring would lose the adaptive benefits of gene sets that mathematically will rarely if ever come together in any future descendants.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:31:42 3752e7 No.11216

>>11213
I'd address hybrid vigor if it wasn't a fact that humans are not purebred dog breeds and it actually occurred in human populations. You are shitposting because you don't even know why that refutes your copy pasta shit post so completely.

>>11213
>Anyway, yeah, I'm not even trolling. Just laying devil's advocate to see if anyone will come up with a decent counter argument to this.
If you weren't trolling, if you wanted to post a discussion and not a copy pasta there is no reason for you not to post in the other threads about this.

This shitpost OP is literally cancer on the catalog.

>>11208
Hopefully this isn't like cuckchan where moderators "cant undo the enlightened decisions of other mods. This is a shitpost copypasta thread and there are already threads to discuss the topic without having a giant cuckloving OP on our catalog.

This board will NOT turn into Cuckchan and shit like this being deleted is how that will be maintained.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:44:42 064ba4 No.11221

>>11216
>copypasta
Prove it.

Either link to the archive post or you're full of shit.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:49:38 4e52f5 No.11223

File: 1428634178487.jpg (372.75 KB, 1920x1200, 8:5, 340825.jpg)

>>11209
I cannot find the pasta, would need to know if others can confirm or not, as for the Outbreeding depression, it is up to you to explain why one narrative disproves the other, if you think this is pathetic, take a look at the "redpill" science shit-thread, that was blatant bullshit, but still we have to realize some people might find it interesting, and not everyone has the knowledge that you or others have in specific fields, and people that stumble upon a certain obscure conspiracy theory using old/outdated/scientifically invalid theories might seriously consider them and take them as real. Therefore, we shouldn't ban on sight, imo, as long as it doesn't devolve into shitfest.

Finally, for the other genetics threads, imho >>10668 would have much more reasons to be deleted than this one. If it's a pasta, I'll delete it in the future, but if it can bring knowledge to the board, idc about the initial intentions to stir shit up if it can bring good convo. A slider fails its task if people actually discuss the subject instead of derailing the thread or going full emotional, and I feel like this thread could be a good debunking of the typical leftist pro-immigration propaganda.

>>11213
Yeah, once again, you don't have a shitposting history, and if it stirs up good convo, I don't see much wrong with it.

>>11214
I still tend to not think that 120+ hours of higher education in biology is worthless, no offence. Also, I did search on the web for pasta, couldn't find it, and I find it quite ironic to call OP an "emotional hook" when compared to most other threads on the board, and considering it actually puts forward a general scientific method. As for other threads on the subject, they are about more generic topics, each on his own lead and following its own path, and not directly on the said subject, so I would say that no, this doesn't qualify as something to be banned/deleted, once again, as long as we stop talking meta, and start discussing the actual topic. Repeating myself, if this gets reposted or pasta'd in the future, I will delete it if it doesn't yield anything new, but it is the first time posted on the board, and deserves the benefit of the doubt.

>>11216
Look above for answer to your shit, as long as there is discussion I don't mind. Although you are right, other mods will decide, I see you reported and I will leave it up for them to see and judge for themselves, even if I believe you are full of shit.

>You are shitposting because you don't even know why that refutes your copy pasta shit post so completely.
Although, OP, if he's right about this point, then I highly suggest you let people who know what they're talking about (or just read about it and refute his points) do their things, thread is okay as long as discussion remains relevant and doesn't run in circles.

>>11221
Last I checked, archives weren't robots.txt protected and answered to google searches. On that matter, I tried googling examples, and parts of text all over it to look for pasta and couldn't find anything related, and most of all, my memory doesn't remember such a pasta (there already were genetics threads on /pol/, thousands of them over the years, but I don't remember this specific one to be as omnipresent as mentioned), so ya, I would need a link in this instance. In the meantime (unless if it's to post a link to pasta), discuss the subject and not if or why it should be deleted, please.

Once again, enjoy thread.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:53:18 3752e7 No.11224

>>11199
>>11216
Threads to post this in insteaad of cucking the catalog
>>7834
>>7610

Even

>>6483
>>4977

>>11221
Prove what? you think I screen all copy pasta you faggot?

go google it
its brought up as a troll all the fucking time
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/hardy%20weinberg/
I've already refuted it, go screen cap it if you are a genuine person looking for responses, and delete this cuck thread.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 02:54:54 3752e7 No.11226

>>11223
>(there already were genetics threads on /pol/, thousands of them over the years, but I don't remember this specific one to be as omnipresent as mentioned

This is a bold faced lie. Is polpol modteam compromised like pol?

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:15:48 4e52f5 No.11230

File: 1428635747181.jpg (1.64 MB, 2560x1600, 8:5, 386811.jpg)

>>11226
>>7834 - Moral/spiritual conception of nationality. Much more philosophy related than biology.
>>7610 - Immigration policy related, much more of border policy aka politics than biology.
>>6483 - A library on biology (only thing you linked actually about biology) which is pretty much dead because OP wasn't so good, and who would get such a post drowned or completely looked over.
>>4977 - Fucking Germany's culture and its borders/foreign policy in NSDAP times, wtf are you even high on?

>its brought up as a troll all the fucking time
Is it? Because I checked all the posts there, and it seems to only be brought up by shitty witty replies from people who seem to have biology degrees, or bullshit about Weinberg being a Jew, but nothing like OP, and it only seems to be pushed or invoked by people that have the same ideology as OP, which tends to say they don't believe whites can be bred out, nor that recessive genes will actually make white traits disappear. Once again, it's something I don't fully agree with, but that is defensible.

>>11226
Ya, now you're just shitposting because the link to full halfpol archives, linking back to 2013, didn't show anything even remotely similar to OP. Stop being so full of shit, and keep posting about the actual subject of the thread or kindly gtfo. I left the report up, another mod will look into it because you are so adamant about the fact that it's shitposting, but even if you are right, it doesn't allow you to stall this thread with meta bullshit like you're doing.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:20:54 52ed62 No.11235

File: 1428636054193.png (134.76 KB, 733x478, 733:478, extinction by hybridizatio….png)

>>11199
>The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
>not an oversimplified model that is almost never found in nature
Pick one.

>There is no migration, since there are no humans outside earth.
By this logic migration would never exist, no when they mean migration they literally mean individuals moving from one region to another. Oversimplifying the species into one group and saying therefore there is no genetic flow is asinine since we're looking for what's going on intraspecies.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium-122
>The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium can be disturbed by a number of forces, including mutations, natural selection, nonrandom mating, genetic drift, and gene flow. For instance, mutations disrupt the equilibrium of allele frequencies by introducing new alleles into a population. Similarly, natural selection and nonrandom mating disrupt the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium because they result in changes in gene frequencies. This occurs because certain alleles help or harm the reproductive success of the organisms that carry them. Another factor that can upset this equilibrium is genetic drift, which occurs when allele frequencies grow higher or lower by chance and typically takes place in small populations. Gene flow, which occurs when breeding between two populations transfers new alleles into a population, can also alter the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

>>11209
>outbreeding depression
Nope. Humans aren't that distantly apart.

>>11213
>hybrid vigor
Nope. Human continental populations aren't inbred.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:22:38 3752e7 No.11236

>>11223
>Outbreeding depression, it is up to you to explain why one narrative disproves the other, if you think this is pathetic, take a look at the "redpill" science shit-thread, that was blatant bullshit, but still we have to realize some people might find it interesting, and not everyone has the knowledge that you or others have in specific fields
I've raped the nonargument, I've explained why this OP is a cuck on the catalog and how it related to halfchan being cuckchan. This racemixing propaganda is what made propagated the cuck meme.

>idc about the initial intentions to stir shit up if it can bring good convo
I'll speak for myself and if anyone else wants to add to this they can
When I see cuck shit all over the fucking catalog I get the fuck off the board. I don't have time in my mind to think or refute cuck shit all day. It is a mods job to delete all the shitposting and "funposting" that "might induce discussion" if it is shit on the catalog. If someone started posting racemix couples on the catalog would you allow that too because "it brings posts"? Quality over quantity.

>general scientific method
It doesn't do that. It tries to hijack scientific terms to push ideas that science has refuted.

>deserves the benefit of the doubt.
No it doesn't.
No racemixing OPs deserve benefit of the doubt.

I'm done with this thread. If the "community" and the mods accept this thread then that will be a loss to the board, I've tried my best to contribute but I will absolutely not stay anywhere that tolerates racemixing propaganda.

If we had a thread about money and the OP ridiculed anyone that wasn't a jew loving keynesian then the catalog would be crapped up too. This just happens to be less obvious to some people.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:23:47 3752e7 No.11237

>>11230
>stall this thread with meta bullshit like you're doing.
wow
thank you for an insight into your philosophy

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:26:46 52ed62 No.11240

File: 1428636406512.png (90.01 KB, 1173x501, 391:167, hybrid vig.png)

Further on hybrid vigor.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:36:13 064ba4 No.11244

>>11230
>same ideology as OP, which tends to say they don't believe whites can be bred out, nor that recessive genes will actually make white traits disappear.
Well, it's more that if one believes whites are superior (or rather that whites somehow ended up with the best genes), then one should not fear race mixing because their own race will end up on top anyway. It's the lesser races who should fear being bred out.

Even a massive disparity in birth rates loses meaning with this logic: Once the non-whites get a bit of white admixture, every kid they pop up is spreading some white genes.

Of course one could be opposed to mixing not because whites are superior, but because one personally prefers other whites. Can't really say much there, except question what difference it makes if you're a white who likes whites vs. a mixed liking other mixeds.

>>11235
I don't think the migration aspect is that complicated. Like I said, if you have an inflow of genetically atypical individuals, obviously they will distort the gene pool, because the gene pool is a function of everyone's genes.

If you want to speak about the frequency of so and so gene associated with whiteness in, say, France, then okay, you're right. But France by itself is not that special. Countries come and go, borders shift. The important constant is the state of humanity, especially now that everything is so globalized.

>When I see cuck shit all over the fucking catalog I get the fuck off the board.
I'll match your offer, and say that if I get banned for this thread of all things, I won't necessarily quit /polpol/ forever, but never again will I put a tenth of the effort into any post I type. Since you're so adamant about making it you or me, let's let the community judge on their on terms whose company they'd rather keep.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:37:03 52ed62 No.11245

File: 1428637023598.png (78.71 KB, 587x352, 587:352, hybrid.png)

Given this scenario even if we don't lose alleles through this process, which can happen, we lose combinations which decreases biodiversity of our species.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:39:20 064ba4 No.11248

>>11245
But you are essentially implying there is epistasis between genes associated with race.

Has there ever been a case of this?

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:46:37 52ed62 No.11249

File: 1428637597235.png (117.73 KB, 635x838, 635:838, distribution.png)

>>11244
>I don't think the migration aspect is that complicated
And that's why your model fails aside from depending solely on HW. We're looking at gene distribution across the globe.

>If you want to speak about the frequency
Which can go to 0.

>The important constant is the state of humanity
Yeah and we'd be losing a significant portion of our biodiversity. Some of which could be rarer HLA and other immunological alleles that may be crucial in case of certain pandemics.

>>11248
Traits being polygenic is enough for this to matter.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:48:28 52ed62 No.11251

>>11249
*allele distribution

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:52:04 52ed62 No.11253

File: 1428637924809.jpg (134.98 KB, 1280x526, 640:263, F5.large.jpg)

>>11249
>Some of which could be rarer HLA and other immunological alleles that may be crucial in case of certain pandemics.
Distribution of Duffy antigen alleles is a good example.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 03:57:19 064ba4 No.11255

>>11249
>Which can go to 0.
If we look at worldwide frequency, it cannot go to 0 by migration unless space colonization happens.

That leaves just genetic drift and selection.

With 9 billion humans and counting, the chances of genetic drift purifying any allele are low on the order of "more zeros than atoms in the universe".

That leaves selection. But why would white traits be selected against? Sexually, they are most desirable. Practically, they tend to be the most successful.

What am I missing?

>a significant portion of our biodiversity
Depends on how you define biodiversity. If you just count alleles, like I said, you won't lose much. The genes are still there.

If you count the number of phenotypes, then yes some phenotypes will become rare (but others will become common). HLA in particular will still be diverse.

>>11253
What is preventing the same distribution coming about if everyone in the world was brown?

>>11249
>Traits being polygenic is enough for this to matter.
But it could be polygenic as in "need at least one of these genes". Then what?

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 04:13:08 52ed62 No.11262

>>11255
>If we look at worldwide frequency, it cannot go to 0 by migration unless space colonization happens.
Nope, if a frequency is very small globally because the allele is only found in one region which is undergoing gene flow it sure as shit can. Again you're assuming alleles are evenly distributed across the globe when they aren't. In some regions you won';t find any alleles that are present in another.

>That leaves selection. But why would white traits be selected against? Sexually, they are most desirable.
Again you're oversimplifying. You're not looking at the proportion of these populations. If there are 10% white people and 90% nonwhite people and the white people are all interbred after that generation goodbye whitey. And further and further dilutions will go from there. You can lose alleles in this process.

>Practically, they tend to be the most successful.
Not reproductively which is what matters in this case.

>Depends on how you define biodiversity. If you just count alleles, like I said, you won't lose much. The genes are still there.
It's combinations that matter too. And no your oversimplified model won't tell us anything about what we're losing.

>What is preventing the same distribution coming about if everyone in the world was brown?
The fact that these people not only carry alleles for skin tone but those DARC alleles with them when they reproduce means that with those darker pigment alleles you also get gene flow of their DARC alleles. This will most likely offset these frequencies.

>But it could be polygenic as in "need at least one of these genes". Then what?
Polygenic means many genes contribute to a trait. HLA being an example and that matters for immunity so if we lose certain combinations in this process that is so many more diseases we're susceptible to as a species.

>maybe if I treat a 3rd order system as a 1st order system it'll work out
Please stop this.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 04:14:43 52ed62 No.11264

>>11262
>Again you're oversimplifying. You're not looking at the proportion of these populations. If there are 10% white people and 90% nonwhite people and the white people are all interbred after that generation goodbye whitey. And further and further dilutions will go from there. You can lose alleles in this process.
And it doesn't even have to be in one generation over several generation of hybridization the proportionally smaller populations tends to extinction.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 04:28:03 3752e7 No.11266

File: 1428640082792.jpg (160.54 KB, 1032x604, 258:151, 1720194710104735813952.jpg)

>>11244
>I'll match your offer, and say that if I get banned for this thread of all things, I won't necessarily quit /polpol/ forever, but never again will I put a tenth of the effort into any post I type. Since you're so adamant about making it you or me, let's let the community judge on their on terms whose company they'd rather keep.

If you are still making the case that you did not intentionally put up this OP that is a copypasta to push racemixing propaganda then why would you leave the board if it were rejected? You could discuss what you claim to be devils advocate without such inflammatory OP.

>Well, it's more that if one believes whites are superior (or rather that whites somehow ended up with the best genes), then one should not fear race mixing because their own race will end up on top anyway. It's the lesser races who should fear being bred out.
Except that the reply to this has already been put in this thread by multiple posters. There is no reason to have hybrids when the non mixed race has plenty of diversity without the adverse effects of incompatible genetic sets.

Another thing is that we assume that the flood of immigrants being pushed here isn't creating hybrids with the poorest of these other races which capitalist kikery aside does correlate with predisposition to individuals being dumb, less industrtious, less curious.

>>11255
>If we look at worldwide frequency, it cannot go to 0 by migration unless space colonization happens.
Genetic drift coupled with geopolitical tensions suggest otherwise.

Near zero is just as bad as zero in the case when future mixed offspring recombining for optimal phenotypes are so low in the first place.

>>11255
>But it could be polygenic as in "need at least one of these genes". Then what?
Usually you need a number of genes to function properly to get a particular product. Given two populations sufficiently removed from each other for an extended period of time it follows that they could have different processes for the same products and some different products that give them an adaptive advantage in their particular native habitat. You might now have offspring who have a range from none of the advantages to either habitat to partial advantages to just one ancestor habitat. Partial advantages are often null because two different traits may complement each other in the final expression while not being connected genetically.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 04:29:09 52ed62 No.11267

Anyway I got exams to study for so peace, y'all.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 04:39:56 60e878 No.11276

>>11199
1. The recessive genes will still be there but they will not be expressed. The recessive phenotype is ultimately eliminated.

2. In humans, intelligence isn't selected for, you can easily get by with an IQ of 85. There's no reason to assume that in the future subjectively advantageous genes like intelligence will dominate. It's "idiocracy".

3. Image, that's competition in action. It's Kettlewell's experiment occurring incredibly slowly. After a finite duration of time (centuries, millennia, millions of years) one shade of pig will eliminate the others as is in accordance with Gause's law.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 05:06:15 60e878 No.11286

generation 0, 1 in 20 has blue eyes, 1 in 20 has the genes for them.
generation 1, 1 in 400 has blue eyes, 1 in 10 either has blue eyes or has the genes for them.
generation 2, 1 in 382 has blue eyes, 1 in 18 either has blue eyes or has the genes for them.
generation 3, 1 in 1126 has blue eyes, 1 in 31 either has blue eyes or has the genes for them.

there's a one step rise in the second gen because that's the nature of this simple interpolation, if you look at the pastebin you'll soon see why

http://pastebin.com/kFnFynB0

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 07:02:03 e26a91 No.11295

>>11199
>So why do we worry about white genes being diluted by race-mixing?
Pleiotropy.

Miscegenation is risky because you don't know which genes will be passed from each parent. Further, you don't know how those genes will interact, a la pleiotropy.

Most genes rely on an ensemble of other genes to function properly. Traits that follow a Mendelian inheritance pattern, which you described in your post, are actually pretty rare, pleiotropy is the norm.

If certain genes are not all present, then it is not a matter of dilution. Would you consider replacing a member of The Beatles to be dilution? They would cease to be The Beatles!

Race mixing increases entropy. Enough said.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 16:43:49 064ba4 No.11497

>>11262
>If there are 10% white people and 90% nonwhite people and the white people are all interbred after that generation goodbye whitey.
That's my point, it will be good bye whitey. But if you care about white genes, not just being white (why, if not because of the genes?), then there will still be 10% white genes, they just won't be in the same people. And the proportion will increase if white genes are superior.

>You can lose alleles in this process.
Besides genetic drift (which is is extremely slight in populations above 40), can you explain how you would lose an allele that's being selected for?

>Not reproductively which is what matters in this case.
What about OkCupid stats showing even the ultraliberal faggots on OKC always preferring whites?

>It's combinations that matter too.
Can you give an example of a polygenic white trait that can only occur if all the alleles are present together (and would be lost if combinations are broken up)? For instance, intelligence or skin color don't qualify: With both, you still get some benefit if you have only some of the genes.

>HLA distribution
It only happens to coincide with skin color today because that's how it happened to be. There is no causal link that forces skin color and immune genes to follow each other. You could easily have everyone in the world have the exact same brown skin and the ones in Africa would still have whatever immune makeup is advantageous in that environment.

>Polygenic means many genes contribute to a trait.
I know what polygenic means, but not all polygenic traits are lost if the combinations are broken up by alleles spreading out. QTLs, being quantitative, will not be lost. Instead of a few very smart and a few very dumb individuals, you will get a lot of somewhat smart individuals (actually you will get a bell-curve distribution -just like in reality- and the upper half will be more successful -just like in reality-).

>if we lose certain combinations in this process that is so many more diseases we're susceptible to as a species.
What combinations will we lose that are more vulnerable, exactly? You wouldn't lose the combination, since as in the HWE the q^2 never goes to zero, just become very slow. When the disease hits, the small number of people who still have your precious white HLA makeup will survive, while the other ones die, which will increase the frequency of their alleles.

At this point it's as if you are arguing with facts. In evolution, you often have a recessive but slightly advantageous mutation arise in a single individual, and yet it often not only avoids getting "lost", but sweeps through the population. Unless you want to claim that white genes are not actually advantageous (in which case drift is in fact a danger), then how would evolution even work at all if alleles could be "lost" as easily as you say?

>>11264
We're talking about extinction of genes, not populations.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 17:08:43 064ba4 No.11500

>>11266
>why would you leave the board if it were rejected
I didn't say I'd leave the board, but if it's unable to distinguish a shitpost from a decent post that someone got salty over, it's not a board worth taking seriously and nothing good will come out of it.

My OP is not inflammatory at all. It is a simple statement of facts and logical deductions. If you think there's a hole in either you're welcome to bring it up (which is why I made the thread).

If you think it's inflammatory you are literally just salty. See: The sager who screamed copypasta over and over because he couldn't comprehend a logical post that disagrees with his worldview.

>push racemixing propaganda
Again you're full of shit. I have clearly given two very strong, valid arguments for not racemixing:
>Is it because culture is more important than genetics?
>one could be opposed to mixing not because whites are superior, but because one personally prefers other whites

But the knee jerk to having your worldview challenged only allows "muh propaganda" as a response.

>Genetic drift
As I said, practically impossible after number of individuals goes above a certain point, and that point is about 40.

>it follows that they could have different processes for the same products
Lol, no. No human populations has "different processes". They all have the same genes. Some just have a version of the gene that works slightly better or worse.

>Partial advantages are often null because two different traits may complement each other in the final expression while not being connected genetically.
You are welcome to provide examples for this.

>>11276
>The recessive phenotype is ultimately eliminated.
No. Read OP again. So long as some minor allele exists, q^2 cannot be zero.

>In humans, intelligence isn't selected for, you can easily get by with an IQ of 85.
This is very contrary to my experience.

>Kettlewell's experiment
The one with the moths being selected because birds eat the white ones? How does that apply? The only selection on humans is whites being preferred to non-whites by other non-whites, which selects for whites not against.

>Gause's law
>is a proposition that states that two species competing for the same resource cannot coexist
Whites are not a different species.

>>11286
According to HWE, it should remain stable at the initial ratio. I don't have to time to re-do your work, but I'm guessing you made an error in your math.

>>11295
>Most genes rely on an ensemble of other genes to function properly.
All humans have the same exact genes. They have different alleles of those genes, but you'd have to give me examples of an allele requiring an ensemble of alleles.

>a member of The Beatles to be dilution?
Genetics does not apply to composition of musical bands.

>Race mixing increases entropy.
You know what else increases entropy? You breathing.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 17:10:30 064ba4 No.11501

>>11500
>sager who screamed copypasta
Was apparently you, I didn't realize you were the same ID.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 18:28:48 351ed8 No.11517

OP's premise:
>hurr durr let's allow mass non-white immigration into all white countries it doesn't matter because your children will still retain some alleles XDXDXD hahaha!!!

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 21:17:15 52ed62 No.11565

File: 1428700634313.png (33.36 KB, 811x579, 811:579, hw.png)

>>11497
>That's my point, it will be good bye whitey. But if you care about white genes, not just being white (why, if not because of the genes?), then there will still be 10% white genes
You clearly have a poor understanding of how sexual reproduction works. You get one chromosome from each parent so that means 1 allele from each parent is not given to the offspring or lost.

Now consider the simple case: two homozygous populations for two different alleles. Proportionally population A is 10% of the global population and is experiencing gene flow with hybridization from Population B which makes up 90% of the global population.

F1 of those parents that do hybridize will be heterozygous, F2 the populations begins looking like that of the migrants, F3 even more so. Meanwhile 1 allele is being lost from each parent to each offspring but the only alleles being replenished are from those of the migrants. It's not like chemical dilution where the amount of species are conserved while being less concentrated. We actually can lose the amount of native alleles during gene flow dilution.

The most likely outcome is that as t->infinity population A's alleles will tend to a frequency of 0.

>Besides genetic drift (which is is extremely slight in populations above 40), can you explain how you would lose an allele that's being selected for?
Depends on the type of selection. If it's merely sexual selection and those genes are proportionally low like above.

>Can you give an example of a polygenic white trait that can only occur if all the alleles are present together (and would be lost if combinations are broken up)?
Functional genomics is still in development, the fact is we don't know enough about which genes are responsible for intelligence to say if they also are pleiotropic for physical traits, however it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few.

>There is no causal link that forces skin color and immune genes to follow each other.
As of yet, but again we don't know so don't assume there isn't a link just because we haven't found one.

I mean really RNA interference was only discovered a few years ago so there is much to be discovered. Lets not take unnecessary risks of which we don't even really understand if we don't have to.

>QTLs, being quantitative, will not be lost.
Except you're forgetting recombination.

>Instead of a few very smart and a few very dumb individuals, you will get a lot of somewhat smart individuals (actually you will get a bell-curve distribution -just like in reality-
Great just what we need everyone to regress closer to the mean. Instead of everyone becoming more excellent lets just regress to the middle so we can all be equally mediocre.

>and the upper half will be more successful -just like in reality-).
Except not reproductively just like in reality. Reproduction is negatively correlated to intelligence in this society.

>What combinations will we lose that are more vulnerable, exactly?
I'm not sure but lets not lose things we might need. So far it hasn't been sufficiently demonstrated that we won't lose anything important in this process.

>You wouldn't lose the combination, since as in the HWE the q^2 never goes to zero
Except we're not dealing with HW and even then q is 0<=q<=1.

(q+p)^2=1

when p=1 => q=0 q^2=0^2=0

But again HW doesn't apply, you failed to meet the required assumptions.

>the small number of people who still have your precious white HLA makeup will survive
Even if they are around, which I have demonstrated may not be the case, they may be below MVP.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 21:17:47 52ed62 No.11566

>>11565

>At this point it's as if you are arguing with facts
Says the guy using HW equilibrium to solve something that requires a complex model that isn't entirely imaginary.

>then how would evolution even work at all if alleles could be "lost" as easily as you say?
Because 99% of the species that ever lived are in fact extinct. Evolution works because of the scale, incredibly unlikely events become more likely of happening at least once the more you repeat the trial.

Suppose the probability of A is 1/6, dice roll. Roll the dice once you have 1/6 probability it'll land on the desired number.

However we roll it again then

from 1 = P(A)+P(not A)

=> P(A) = 1 - P(not A) <=to consider number of trials, n=> P(A) = 1 - P(not A)^n
=> P(not A) = (5/6)^2
=> P(A) = 1 - (5/6)^2 = 0.3

0.3 > 0.16

So since P(not A)<1
As lim n->infinity p(A)=1

Evolution 101, it's like I'm, arguing with a creationist.
>why come evilution can happen when it's so unlikely?

>We're talking about extinction of genes, not populations.
Extinction of genes can follow extinction of populations.

Anyway I have exams so I don't think I should waste my time with someone who actually believes HW applies to this.

Peace, y'all.

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 22:56:31 52ed62 No.11621

>>11565
edit because you might be a pedant about this:
>You get one half of your chromosomes from each parent so that means 1 allele per gene from each parent is not given to the offspring or lost.
fixed

Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 23:03:20 52ed62 No.11629

>>11621
And back to far more important things with me.

I probably won't have time till the week is over.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 04:46:33 064ba4 No.11785

File: 1428727593391.png (73.64 KB, 911x661, 911:661, plot.png)

I simulated the a scenario similar to the OP for 1000 generations. I started with a population of 10k people, 5% bb (blue eyed) and the rest BB (brown eyed).

Here is the Python code: http://pastebin.com/th6tkJ1z It takes a long time to run since I tried to keep the code as straightforward as possible.

Briefly,
* Each individual is assumed to mate once and then die. This is a very common simplification in population genetics, and extending lifespan or offspring per generation doesn't really affect much unless you have selection too.
* Random matings are performed as follows: Pick a random male, pick a random female, decide the offspring's sex randomly and pick one random allele from either parent.
* Output is a tab-delimited table which you can paste in Excel for analysis.

As you can see, minor allele drifts around 5%, the initial ratio. If the grey line (heterozygotes) ever touches exactly 0%, then this "blue eye" allele will indeed be extinct. If you run the simulation long enough, I'm sure you will see this happening a few times. But in this case, I have run for 1000 generations, and it hasn't even went below 5% except for a brief period.

Also, you'll notice there's hardly ever any bb. So if you looked at this population, you'd think that blue eyes have gone extinct. However, the genes remain.

To give you a sense of perspective, 1 human generation has historically been about 20 years, and in modern times is about 25. So this simulation represents 20k years of past human mating (about a 15th of the time Homo sapiens has existed as a species) and 25-30k years of future human mating. I included the approximate length of several historical periods for reference.

What does all of this mean? If you were a town of 500 blue eyed people, and you were suddenly flooded by 9500 brown eyed people, and everyone started mating randomly without regard to eye color (opposite of reality where people prefer blue eyes, but in line with left-wing ideology which advocates against having a preference) then even in 27,000 AD (well into the Age of Strife when space marines were created, for you Warhammer fans!) your blue eye genes will probably still be around.

Admittedly, this whole exercise is academic: If "white genes" have no effect on fitness, why even care about them going extinct? A realistic simulation will model a higher likelihood of picking blue eyed partners. I predict that what happens then is you will see the yellow bb line, and the grey Bb line, swing upwards. When bb reaches 50%, Bb will go down to make room for more bb. Only very, very rarely will bb go extinct early on, before it has a chance to get established.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 04:53:09 064ba4 No.11789

>>11785
>* Each individual is assumed to mate once and then die.
Correction: Each individual is assumed to be born on generation n, be eligible for mating on generation n+1. Some will get lucky and get picked more than once for mating, some will not mate at all.

For the sake of intuition, this is like a human having an average of 2 children at 15-35 years old (prehistoric) or at 20-45 years (modern.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 04:54:41 064ba4 No.11792

>>11785
Byzantine Empire is also wrong - should be half of what it is.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 06:54:14 52ed62 No.11825

File: 1428735253637.gif (137.21 KB, 250x243, 250:243, tumblr_lunocz3mMX1r24lq9o1….gif)

>>11785
Gotta say I'm pretty impressed, this is a pretty damn good base model. Had to put down my control systems notes and matlab to check it out.

Especially appreciated this:
>genotype = random.choice(father[1:]) + random.choice(mother[1:])

The only thing though is it's pure HWE after the initial instance of gene flow. Try adding a continuous gene flow of BB, maybe once the progeny reaches 9000 add 1000 BB each generation or some values. Would be interested to see what happens at various amounts of gene flow. Wondering if there is a critical value or percentage.

Would do it myself if I didn't have to do all this PID stuff. I'm up to my ass in Bode and Nyquist plots.

And I guess you could treat the 10,000 cutoff as carrying capacity reached. Though it would normally fluctuate about the value. Maybe these guys reach steady state really quick.

Just on this:
>Admittedly, this whole exercise is academic: If "white genes" have no effect on fitness, why even care about them going extinct?
They may not have an effect given this environment but might in another. Looking at skin tone alone there is an obvious relationship with environment and health which is relevant to fitness. Generally the higher the concentration of melanin the better the UV protection but less vitamin D synthesis. And believe it or not it is relevant in humans:
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitamin-d-news/new-research-somali-immigrants-in-sweden-suffering-from-severe-vitamin-d-deficiency-during-pregnancy/

And since I like your simulation so much I'll say this much about why conserving genes really doesn't matter: "designer babbies" and gene therapy.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 07:15:59 064ba4 No.11831

>>11825
I want to try some variants, but it turns out python's random is slow as fuck.

I was hoping I could clean it up and get a speed boost but the bulk of the time is taken up by calling random over and over. Incidentally, something that Matlab would have been great for with the juicy randi(n, 1).

>adding a continuous gene flow of BB
This is a good idea. Could actually test more realistic scenarios, such as 9.6 million bb's absorbing 1.33 million BB/year (or around 33.25)… Guess what country this would model.

I'm actually more curious about a simple mating preference in favor of bb, or lower rate of survival for BB children. Again, I think talking about genetic drift is kind of missing the point, since we already expect that these genes matter and aren't neutral. In your melanin example, for instance, couldn't you say the problem is taking care of itself, and even if the population was majority African, the white skin would still be selected for?

Another dimension would be differential birth rate for BB vs. bb. Though in the simplest version, that would look the same as child survival (there would be a percent chance that BB or Bb children get discarded, while bb is never discarded).

Granted all of this is I'm sure extensively published on in the past half century. What do you think would be missing from published models?

>"designer babbies" and gene therapy.
Heh, that's true. The moment someone starts selling a skin color changer, everyone will suddenly have white kids (I wonder what interracial adoption rates look like).

Might as well mention http://time.com/money/3733372/surgery-turn-brown-eyes-blue/

From that perspective, the question is, with massive immigration to majority white countries: Is genetic drift going to overcome positive selection and make a gene go extinct before before gene therapy and designer babies happen? (my money is on no)

Of course, one could also ask - in a world with only BB and Bb, where bb is an extremely rare freak occurrence, would the population even know to put bb in their designer babies?

Kind of interesting, actually. We know evolution selects only for phenotype. But we as a species have just a few years ago gained the ability to select based on genotype, and even create our own preferred genotype if none is available. What happens to conventional laws of evolution when this ability inevitably becomes widespread?

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 08:10:34 52ed62 No.11854

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>11831
>such as 9.6 million bb's absorbing 1.33 million BB/year (or around 33.25)… Guess what country this would model.
Holy shit, Sweden.

>couldn't you say the problem is taking care of itself, and even if the population was majority African, the white skin would still be selected for?
Depends on how severe the problem is and how high their birth rates are. They could be out-birthing their vitamin D problem.

>Another dimension would be differential birth rate for BB vs. bb. Though in the simplest version, that would look the same as child survival (there would be a percent chance that BB or Bb children get discarded, while bb is never discarded).
Aren't birth rates favoring BB though? That's the whole reason they're looking to immigration, bb doesn't reach replacement. Though idk why they aren't pushing for automation instead, would be a better solution in the long run.

>What do you think would be missing from published models?
We'd have to go through a lot of journals to know for sure, there are models that account for mutation, gene-gene interaction, complex gene-environment interaction, etc. I guess it's a matter of accuracy and some confounding variables. Either way what you're doing is onto a great start.

> The moment someone starts selling a skin color changer, everyone will suddenly have white kids
If I could have any skin color I'd go with a light grey. So I wouldn't be surprised if humans ended up being all sorts of colors, a brony's wet dream come true though I guess they still would have trouble getting laid.

>From that perspective, the question is, with massive immigration to majority white countries: Is genetic drift going to overcome positive selection and make a gene go extinct before before gene therapy and designer babies happen?
Even if it does go extinct, we have vast databases of all these genomes. I'm sure somewhere there'll be sequence to synthesize the strand artificially.

>Of course, one could also ask - in a world with only BB and Bb, where bb is an extremely rare freak occurrence, would the population even know to put bb in their designer babies?
I wouldn't be surprised if designer babbies sorta became like fashion, so for a period BB is fashionable while during another bb. It could be when one became rare and people get tired of the majority the rare goes into fashion. Grass is always greener on the other side. Though who knows?

All this is really interesting.

>What happens to conventional laws of evolution when this ability inevitably becomes widespread?
I wish we'd live long enough to find out. It's certainly not helping that there are so many luddites when it comes to biotechnology of this kind. Even first world governments against this sort of thing, crying about nonsense like it's against human dignity and their skywizard doesn't approve. If god exists and he didn't want us playing with his tools why did he leave them lying around?

And then there is all that shit about such Eugenics being evil, video related (a little frustrating to watch).

Anyway, I hope you're around /polpol/ often because I would love to continue this convo. I just have a very busy week ahead full of exams. And I'd love to see how your simulation develops. Again much impress.

Also I do want to apologize if I said something insulting previously.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 08:33:20 3752e7 No.11867

If OP really wanted to discuss this subject without pushing racemixing he would take genuine advice and remake the thread without the "devils bduiciate :DDDDDDDDDD" OP
but that isnt the purpose.
If you want to discuss this topic why have a racemixing pushing OP?
What for? For what purpose? No other posts are visible on the catalog.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 08:38:00 3752e7 No.11869

>>11867
And this is how cuckchan was cucked to full shitpost levels.
No one took catalog seriously until it reached critical levels. You literally had every other thread either about racemixing with asians or niggers racemixin with whites. You had to use the catalog because those threads were spammed to the first page constantly. You again only saw OP, again the OP were cuck shit mass spammed. For what fucking purpose on a low post board would you use a shit spam "racemixing is good" OP
why?
OP has only cried saying "i will le quit" when asked about it.
Why? Why not answer the direct question?

>>11199
>So why discourage interracial unions?
>
So why do we worry about white genes being diluted by race-mixing?
the picture just HAPPENS to have "black" and "white" pigs even though pigs are a much darker pink or a grey color

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 10:49:48 064ba4 No.11898

>>11854
>They could be out-birthing their vitamin D problem.
Then doesn't that mean that by definition they are more fit?

>Aren't birth rates favoring BB though?
They are, when BB's are in their native environment. When they move, who can tell. The left wing argument is that the birth rate is only high to compensate for high mortality and poverty - presumably after getting used to better quality of life in the new country their rates would also drop. (itself an open question: shitty countries that improve see birth rates fall, but immigrant populations in nice countries still have high rates)

>So I wouldn't be surprised if humans ended up being all sorts of colors
Except brown. It would be hilarious to watch liberals beg minorities not to de-color their children.

Incidentally, there is a precursor for this: Asian parents getting their kids eyelid surgery. Though then, Asians are pretty pragmatic.

>Even if it does go extinct, we have vast databases of all these genomes.
But after they have gone extinct, perhaps the public will to restore them will not be as strong. People like what they can see with their own eyes, after all.

>I wouldn't be surprised if designer babbies sorta became like fashion
If so we would probably see cyclic trends. But the worrying thing is, if it really became fashion, you would see social cliques diverging not only culturally but genetically. We would literally end up with a species of super high-IQ knowledge workers, an extremely attractive and charismatic performer/politician species, a dumb but husky worker species, etc.

Though, at that point, I don't know if species would still matter. You could just modify the gametes to create whatever hybrid you want (it would open the door to human/animal hybrids as well).

>I wish we'd live long enough to find out.
>Even first world governments against this sort of thing
We might. First world is against it, but far east? Maybe not so much. They don't have a legacy of monotheism, don't have the same kneejerk reflex to Nazis, don't have a history of interacting with Jews, and already have a healthy biotechnology industry.

>Also I do want to apologize if I said something insulting previously.
No worries, it's the internet after all.

About the video:
>the armless woman brings up an irrelevant point by citing people who became disabled after birth
>the father's argument works only against mandatory eugenics, not voluntary
>both of them focus on disability when there are far more clear cut examples

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 12:19:56 60e878 No.11919

>>11500
>The recessive phenotype is ultimately eliminated.
>No. Read OP again. So long as some minor allele exists, q^2 cannot be zero.
You've confused probability and real incidence. q^2 is a probability. After a given number of generations q^2 becomes so low it doesn't express. See my excel document below. (give me a few posts)

>In humans, intelligence isn't selected for, you can easily get by with an IQ of 85.
>This is very contrary to my experience.
Then your experience is wrong. Dumb people have more children. Being stupid only becomes a negative trait if your stupidity hinders your ability to procreate.

>Kettlewell's experiment
>The one with the moths being selected because birds eat the white ones? How does that apply? The only selection on humans is whites being preferred to non-whites by other non-whites, which selects for whites not against.
It's an expression of Gause's law. One allele of a gene is superior than the others, after a finite duration of time that allele will dominate the gene pool as natural selection selects for it.

In humans, if bigging a brown person.

All I have to do to disprove your fiction that white people will be selected for is western demography. White people are in real decline in spite of our [alleged] aesthetic superiority and intelligence. Africans, despite their poverty and despite their bellicosity, is booming. In a global free for all, the brown mongrel race will have more akin with blacks because evolution rewards their behaviours, not ours.

>Gause's law
>is a proposition that states that two species competing for the same resource cannot coexist
>Whites are not a different species.
It's for all genetic variation. Diversification and speciation are stages of the same process. FYI, I was talking about pigs but it's true for all competitors, of the same species or not.

>>11500
give me 15 minutes

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 12:40:50 60e878 No.11923

File: 1428756050190.png (216.58 KB, 1920x1032, 80:43, polpolstats.png)

>>11500
>>11785

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 12:43:38 1790ce No.11925

>>11854
Being raycist, I have no problem with.
But seeing that paraplegic with partial blindness makes me feel bad.
She seems happy almost because her life is hard.
I hate the woman with a fucked up ugly arm who is a also a race traitor.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 12:47:00 60e878 No.11927

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw2gH89vDFc2cmRQMFZGMTBjZGM/
you need to download to check cells :^)

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 12:52:22 60e878 No.11930

>>11785
oh god, you're the Canadian faggot from 1d4chan

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 12:57:36 064ba4 No.11933

>>11927
Found the problem. After correcting the formula in P16, P19, P22 and P25 it calculates BB and bb correctly. Didn't bother fixing Bb since that is easier found with 1-BB-bb.

The error is that you assume Bb x bb or Bb x BB will give homozygous progeny 75% of the time (depending on cell). In fact, it's 50% of the time.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 14:19:34 979c67 No.11951

>>11208
>
>But I do think he has an interesting theory, and that OP might get refuted by other anons, sure it does seem like it's pushing the "immigration is okay" narrative, but I don't think dissenting opinions should be banned, even that kind of opinion, if they are backed, especially by science.

Well, if you look at places like India they fetishize "white" features to the degree they sell skin whitening cream by the buckets. Especially in an era of overpopulation and a de-emphasis on having children, if in the future only the middle class/wealthy could afford to have babies then those babies will get whiter over time. At least in places like India, China, Russia.

Problem with the OP is that I'm worried about losing the recessive traits like red hair / green eyes / milky skin, which I find the most attractive combo tbh. And that's a tragedy to lose. Another attractive feature combo are the Syrian features, which are dark and sultry and kinda-asian-but-not-quite. This is just my preference, look around the world and you'll find people drawn to very specific, and often rare physical characteristics.

You know, I don't believe any race is necessarily superior, just that different genetic groupings evolved in isolation to be slightly better at different things, and it so happens we are in a phase of human civilization that values the things white people are slightly better at. Which is obvious when you consider that western culture was built by white people, so of course it does. If the dominant world culture was built by black people, it would value those things that black people are slightly better at. Same with Asians, etc. IQ is a good example – it doesn't really measure intelligence; rather it measures a very specific way of thinking about logic and math, and certainly not the only way of thinking about logic and math. Both Aztecs and ancient Egyptians for example had entirely different ways of solving equations from what we use today. Today, we use the method that came out of tradition of European rationalism that revived the mathematical works of ancient Greece. So of course white people are better at IQ tests on average. If Africa invaded and colonized Europe, and enslaved white people, and and those African invaders evaluated intelligence, I guarantee you black people would be "smarter." For example, the test might use the "Egyptian" way of solving math problems, and considering how far into Africa that Egyptian Empire extended maybe that's the natural way of thinking about math for people from that area.

Of course, there weren't any computers in ancient Egypt, whereas ancient Greece nearly had analog computers, so I stand by my white-centric intelligence evaluation methods.

But anyway, I like having a global population where everyone is racially different. Who knows what the future will bring, maybe in 10,000 years due to anything from global climate shifts to war to whatever the most optimal genetic makeup to survive belongs to a pure black race.

That's how the homo- line has survived several near-extinctions, and I feel like if we put all our eggs in one mixed race tan basket we're asking to get wiped out sooner or later.

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 16:11:07 60e878 No.11971

>>11933
I fixed the excel document and found that after the second generation the relative incidence stabilises indefinitely at:

bb 0.0025
BB 0.9025
Bb 0.095

Which is in accordance with your simulation. bb, which was 0.05 crashes to 0.0025, BB at 0.95 crashes to 0.9025 and Bb arises to take 0.095. For bb, this is a 95% decline which is, curiously enough, the original incidence of BB. If try it again with bb at 0.02 and BB 0.98, bb crashes to 0.0004, a 98% decline. With a polygenic phenotype with recessive genes this hit can only be worse.

Conclusions:
- recessive phenotypes will take a hit then stabilise at a rarity proportional to their original rarity. The rarer the phenotype the rarer it will become.
- dominant phenotypes will do the opposite, they will spread then stabilise with a rate of expression proportional to their original incidence. The more common the phenotype the more common it will become.

Your random simulation is fine but the comments about the future are misleading, even after 40 million years or the end of milky way, the ratio will not change so why say it?

Anonymous 04/11/15 (Sat) 20:19:10 064ba4 No.12057

>>11971
>Which is in accordance with your simulation.
More importantly, it's in accordance with the Hardy-Weinberg law, which was invented in the first place to investigate the outcome of such a simulation.

The crash happens because the initial situation is unstable - you can't have two pure populations without hybrids if they mate randomly. When the minor allele is rare, most of it moves into hybrids, so the populations of recessive phenotypes appears to crash, but the amount of recessive gene is exactly the same.

>Your random simulation is fine but the comments about the future are misleading, even after 40 million years or the end of milky way, the ratio will not change so why say it?
Because it's possible that statistical fluctuation due to random chance will distort the ratio, and it could distort it so much that one gene actually becomes extinct. The simulation provides a baseline for the conditions necessary for this extinction (basically, you need a very small population, or you need to wait for a very long time).

Anonymous 05/01/15 (Fri) 14:20:16 138214 No.14140

File: 1430490016214.mp4 (515.67 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Aeeeeylmao.mp4)

>using the Hardy-Weinberg equation

>ever

OP, did you just finish your first genetics class or something?

>assumes all alleles are either dominant or recessive

>assumes they do not influence reproductive capability

>assumes they do not influence fitness

>assumes migration plays absolutely no role

>assumes that it propagates equally in equal circumstances among equal individuals in an unchanging environment, which benefits both individuals equally

>assumes they don't have limiting factors unique to them (eg. relationship between sickle cell anemia and malaria)

>assumes that only 2 alleles are relevant and that their expression is dependent only on THESE genes

>uses only 2 alleles, now try to imagine over a million traits and use the equation for that

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is just a cute little mathematical game based around the rules of Mendelian genetics, it intentionally ignores some of the most important parts about gene flow for the sake of making it mathematically beautiful. You have to be either 12 or retarded to actually try to build up on the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

>However, think of the entire human species.

There is biodiversity among humans as well and that is what Anons are talking about, when talking about race. Only humans can breed with humans, therefore discussing human biodiversity by puttnig them all into a single group is idiotic, but of course liberals like you don't seem to mind.

>There is no migration

This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen anyone state. There is plenty of geneflow across wide distances but that doesn't mean every single area is equally accessible by each individual equaly. I am sure you are going to have fun explaining how a dirt-poor nigger from Cape Town can walk all the way to Canada.

>since there are no humans outside earth

You are absolutely fucking retarded. By that definition birds do not migrate because "lol there are no birds outside Earth".

>(you can work this out but basically genetic drift becomes insignificant at around 40 people)

This would be true if human reproduction were 100% random and if there were NO factors that would influence it. Even the slightest benefit can cause the population to eventually lose the less beneficial adaptation.

>Occasionally a homozygous recessive child (with a white trait) would be born to heterozygous parents, and gain the advantageous white trait, whereas children of homozygous dominant parents would always be born with non-white traits and be less successful.

You are assuming skin content is the only thing that makes people white for this part, while elsewhere you clearly state it isn't the only thing that defines them, doing so is outright deceptive. Not only that but you are talking as if you have no clue what the fuck polygenic inheritance is.

>So why do we worry about white genes being diluted by race-mixing?

Because it wouldn't take just a single generation to get shit back on track, considering the fact that "whiteness" is not defined by simply melanin content, it is determined by a multitude of genes that have no visual distinction. Have fun waiting 10 000 years for things to get back to the way they were previously, retard.

Anonymous 05/02/15 (Sat) 07:38:27 064ba4 No.14153

>>14140

HWE isn't really an early middle school topic, so I don't think you would know about it if you were 12.

Anonymous 05/02/15 (Sat) 10:29:21 3752e7 No.14160

>>14153

>isnt

its on wikipedia anyone can access it

why would you not know about it?

cool self bump

Anonymous 05/03/15 (Sun) 00:28:55 30f17e No.14175

File: 1430612935449.jpg (32.86 KB, 500x294, 250:147, Race is just skin deep.jpg)

>>14153

Nigger, you learn it like maybe one year at most after you are given basic crosses. I know because I have actually learnt it, it isn't taken seriously because it does not have any practical application, it is only used as extra work for you to do because Mendelian genetics is so fucking easy even for kids at the age they are taught it. 12 was just a random number I picked.

Seeing a cute little graph you don't quite understand and then showing it to other people doesn't make your point made in the OP any more valid. Yes, the alleles will remain within the population, but no, this does not mean racemixing won't have long-lasting consequences.

>there is an incredibly large house made of wood, which is eight floors high

>a fire breaks out

>the result is that the house burns until there is nothing but a pile of ashes left

>owner of the house comes back from work

>neighbour states that the owner has nothing to be afraid

>"Oh well it's ok, you still have all the atoms necessary to remake the house the way it was previously. Sure, you may need to reorganise it a little, but most of the atoms remaining from the house are still in the ashes, you may end up with a bit less than you started with but don't worry, I am sure it is no big deal"

>owner is still left with no house, just a pile of ashes

>somehow he should be glad that he never bothered to waste time worrying about accidentally burning his house down, which was something he could easily have prepared for but didn't

"Whiteness" is more than just the sum of its parts the same way the house was more than just the atoms that it was made of. By using the fact that alleles do not disappear from the population, you have reduced the problem into absurdity and thus lost important information that is part of the whole debate. If you reduce a house into nothing but the atoms it is made of, you are ignoring a lot of information that is important about the structure itself, the main part being its function and how it interacts with the surrounding environment.

Anonymous 05/05/15 (Tue) 07:59:21 064ba4 No.14271

>>14175

>"Whiteness" is more than just the sum of its parts

What is it then?

Anonymous 05/05/15 (Tue) 11:48:39 197302 No.14276

>>11199

>Is it because a certain number of white people are required to keep the world from descending into chaos

It is to keep the Jews from being in control.

The Chinese ain't all that dandy, either, despite being intelligent.

Culture, values, ideals and ideas are far more meaningful than skin color, hair or even eye color. Body structure and ideal shape, intelligence are more important than colors – we should just not mix if we are to keep our populations intact. Natural mixing (with trade, tourism, political marriages..) should not be banned, should not be avoided, should not be enforced.

What we are experiencing is a massive campaign against natural selection, for a propagated view which is pent on destruction of European nations (so that EU could be more integrated and centralized, with Jewish parliament there and all..).

Anonymous 05/05/15 (Tue) 11:51:08 197302 No.14277

>>11199

Also, you forget that the amount of immigrants doesn't get lower, the amount of breeding here does. We are going to be rootless people in countries with outsourced citizens and breeding. They will simply do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO1WccH2_YM

>cuck meme

>this

I wouldn't mind if it wasn't for the Baneplane…

Anonymous 05/05/15 (Tue) 15:40:27 436bb2 No.14282

File: 1430840427639.gif (1.88 MB, 230x250, 23:25, 1410963641605.gif)

>>11199

>treating the entire planet as one 'population'

population has an actual scientific meaning in this context, you mong. Your premise fails on a Stats 101 level (probably the first 2 weeks of the class, too, Jesus)

Anonymous 05/05/15 (Tue) 16:37:07 2cb294 No.14283

File: 1430843827000.jpg (58.78 KB, 489x599, 489:599, 489px-jean_ping_080202-f-1….jpg)

>>14271

I don't have anything written down to define it with, so at the moment I can't really give you an answer for that without comparing everything with "X is more Y than Z", but, as the image shows, pigmentation is not the only thing that plays a role. The phenotypic difference between races is what allows us to distinguish between albino niggers and whites, blacks and hypermelaninated asians and between abbos and African nigs. Fuck it, you can even see differences between nations with enough experience, the most commonly known ones are between nips and chinks.

Pic related is a typical black person, race is only skin-deep and there are absolutely no differences in appearance among races except melanin content :^)

And that is only for appearance, let alone intelligence and physical ability. Blacks being able to run fast arises from Jamaican blacks, who would end up being disproportionally represented in running events. The stereotype about Asians being good at maths is supported by the fact that East Asians have among the highest IQ when compared to other races. Ashkenhazi Jews are incredibly prone to hereditary diseases due to excessive inbreeding within the population, they also have an increased risk of becoming schizophrenic.

Sickle cell anemia is found widely among blacks in Africa, since it provides (partial) immunity to malaria. High melanin content means that blacks that are in colder countries are much more prone to vitamin deficiency.

After all these things, are you really going to say that race is just skin colour?

Anonymous 05/06/15 (Wed) 10:36:05 064ba4 No.14319

>>14283

So you don't have anything then, just a vague racist sentiment?

If whites are better because eg they have higher IQ, then there's no problem with mixing. The high IQ genes aren't going anywhere, they'll just diffuse into the other race. Whereas before you had mostly high IQ whites and mostly low IQ blacks, now you will have a lot of brown people, some of them high IQ. Over time, natural/sexual selection will favor high IQ genes and their proportion will increase.

Likewise for any other trait you come up with as a basis for considering whites superior.

>are you really going to say that race is just skin colour?

I don't really see why you are going on about this. The thread has nothing to do with skin color.

Anonymous 05/06/15 (Wed) 12:59:46 b02bb7 No.14323

File: 1430917186923.webm (551 KB, 512x384, 4:3, Where do you think we are.webm)

>>14319

>So you don't have anything then, just a vague racist sentiment?

Webm related

>If whites are better because eg they have higher IQ, then there's no problem with mixing. The high IQ genes aren't going anywhere, they'll just diffuse into the other race.

You have an oversimplified understanding of genetics and that has been very clear throughout the thread. There is no single gene that increases IQ, nor are there specific genes that combine their effects to increase IQ. There are certain genes that influence it but even then it depends on the effects caused by the overall combination, it is far easier to find genes that lower intelligence than to find genes that increase intelligence. This is due to the fact that it is greatly dependent on how the person develops, any strongly disproportionate imbalance in one part of their biochemistry (couldn't think of any other way of saying it, English is not my mother tongue) is going to have a strong impact elsewhere, even if both things are not directly related. You are a retard and all you are doing is interpreting thinks the way you want just for the sake of "proving" your retarded point. Saying there is a universal high IQ gene is just as retarded as saying there is a universal hairy asshole gene. You are pulling bullshit concepts out of the air just so you could pretend that your hypothetical situation applies to the real world.

>The high IQ genes aren't going anywhere, they'll just diffuse into the other race.

That is like saying that the atoms from a house are simply travelling elsewhere and aren't being destroyed after it was burned down. Sure, it is true that those atoms still exist, but knowing that will do jack fucking shit to protect its owner from the rain. It is not the individual atoms (genes) that make up the house (race), it is the combination thereof that forms its structure (expression).

>Whereas before you had mostly high IQ whites and mostly low IQ blacks, now you will have a lot of brown people, some of them high IQ. Over time, natural/sexual selection will favor high IQ genes and their proportion will increase.

This assumes that the low IQ population can NEVER increase in intelligence on its own, which you know very well is not true. It takes time but it will happen eventually, even if it takes a thousand years for the population to increase by an average of 10 IQ points. Intelligence is a desirable trait in many situations, meaning that it will tend to rise up until the point where any higher isn't necessary neither for survival nor for producing offspring.

>I don't really see why you are going on about this. The thread has nothing to do with skin color.

And yet you hold oversimplified views just like it. Read a book nigger and don't pick a textbook aimed at underage faggots still in secondary. If you are going to pick one anyway, then at least grab some Campbell.

Anonymous 05/07/15 (Thu) 10:51:17 064ba4 No.14360

>>14323

I'm not necessarily saying HWE is a perfectly detailed description of reality. Obviously it isn't.

But I'm not trying to, contrary to what everyone seems to think, push a point or shill. I want to build a model to empirically verify some simple hypotheses.

No model is going to be perfect from day one, you have to start simple. I've already provided data, theory and code. You're welcome to alter it, or suggest alterations, or describe your own superior model.

I'm even pretty /pol/ myself, I obviously don't believe I should go racemix tomorrow just because of this thread. Like I said, it's all a thought experiment. What's really disappointing, though, is how much retarded shitposting I've gotten that is pure political demagogy without adding anything.

I guess it is a politics board after all, but really, come on. All you've posted is meaningless sophistry. Do we really have to have the same "argument" about how liberal ideology is wrong (lol, it obviously is) over and over again? Wouldn't it be more interesting to actually show it not work with a simulation? Apparently not.

So what if I took a contrarian stance to stimulate counter arguments? Are you faggots so dependent on your hugbox that any dissent immediately triggers you?

Fucking hell, I'm done. Saging my own thread because you fags wore me down for real.

Anonymous 05/07/15 (Thu) 18:05:40 b333b5 No.14366

File: 1431021940536.png (993.86 KB, 1466x808, 733:404, 1428540645646.png)

>>14360

>But I'm not trying to, contrary to what everyone seems to think, push a point or shill. I want to build a model to empirically verify some simple hypotheses.

Well how about actually look for existing ones and see if you can improve on them, instead of trying to fix the Hardy Weinberg equilibrium? You sure as hell aren't going to find a mathematical model on an anonymous imageboard, that is certain.

>No model is going to be perfect from day one, you have to start simple.

Well you should try looking into things people yet haven't done. I know this is easier said than done but if you are trying to build a new model, this is what you have to do, especially for a well-known field like genetics. Your best option would be to find shit people in the field are struggling with understanding and then check if you can't do something about it.

>I've already provided data, theory and code

Wrong, you have provided a simulation of a model, you have not provided actual data. The theory was taken from an existing source, which is based on Mendelian genetics, which became outdated eventually when replaced by molecular genetics. But on the code, I do have to congratulate you, not sure how many people have actually made simulations on the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. I am sure there are some, but certainly not that many people.

>What's really disappointing, though, is how much retarded shitposting I've gotten that is pure political demagogy without adding anything.

Well the thing is, people on /pol(pol)/ simply say what they think and what they see to be the closest thing to reality. Partly through learnt academic learning, partly through experience and partly by other sources of knowledge. It isn't necessary to understand everything in order to get the right answer on a certain topic, you simply need to know enough to determine it. People are here from varying backgrounds and with different skill-sets, they simply learn from each other what they themselves did not know. For example, most people don't understand HOW inbreeding causes harm, but they know just enough to understand how and why to avoid it.

>All you've posted is meaningless sophistry. Do we really have to have the same "argument" about how liberal ideology is wrong (lol, it obviously is) over and over again?

A lot of the reasons you give to show that racemixing isn't as harmful as most people think are through reduction into absurdity. You concentrate far too greatly on the constituents and miss the general image. I mean, we are in an imageboard after all, I am devoting time to respond and reply, but I am not really motivated enough to reinvent the wheel. When looking at problems in a vacuum, you end up excluding important aspects of it. Racemixing ends up harming the child that is born from it by causing health issues (don't have the data for it, I do know that some Anons posted it a month or so ago) and erodes both parent cultures. Both races are adapted to their own environment (climate, food, social interaction and so on), by combining both you don't get a combination of those traits because each parent provides only half the DNA to their child, you get half of each. Best case scenario would be them being half as good for one and half as good for another, but we know that doesn't happen, often a lot of genes are incompabile with one another and have an unpredictable impact on the child. When this child has offspring, their offspring will also get half from one parent and half from the other, so reaching a favourable combination would take numerous generations just to have one adapted to the environment and culture. That one gene you are trying to look at is only going to come if the rest go with it, so the only way you could get a population back to its previous configuration would be by selective breeding or incredibly huge luck. I have not stated any "meaningless sophistry", I was using examples to explain that you made a huge leap in logic by reducing the problem into absurdity. If something is logically inconsistent, then it is also not a suitable causal chain, it is you jumping to conclusions for whatever individual reasons you may have.

Anonymous 05/07/15 (Thu) 18:06:32 b333b5 No.14367

File: 1431021993108.jpg (177 KB, 1600x1004, 400:251, 1428497006748.jpg)

>>14366

Cont.

>Wouldn't it be more interesting to actually show it not work with a simulation? Apparently not.

Except that decieving people using a flawed model isn't something desirable, regardless of whose hypothesis it supports, doing so is intellectually dishonest and eventually ends up being counter-productive.

>So what if I took a contrarian stance to stimulate counter arguments? Are you faggots so dependent on your hugbox that any dissent immediately triggers you?

I don't give a shit whose view you are going to push, even though I would really like it to support mine, priority goes to getting it right.

>Fucking hell, I'm done. Saging my own thread because you fags wore me down for real.

I am constantly telling you that your method is not accurate enough to draw conclusions from, especially on a large topic like this, but you keep trying to defend it and give it very slight improvements in the hopes it suddently turns right, even though your model is flawed from the very base of it and the conclusions you draw from it are even more so.