[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

Politics, news, culture, society - no shills allowed

Catalog

The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
A message from @CodeMonkeyZ, 2ch lead developer: "How Hiroyuki Nishimura will sell 4chan data"
8chan ‘Press Conference’
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
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.


File: 1427696929982.jpg (333.94 KB, 1245x713, 1245:713, 1426411918506.jpg)

c59ac3 No.3741

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis
Not everyone is a geneticist. Please read about these two concepts and ask questions if there is too much foreign terminology for you.

The results of outbreeding can be disastrous for the descendants of such pairings. Many of the offspring will lack the interactions of genes that should normally result in positive traits in either parent group. The terms introduced here are important to understand.
If there is a list of traits in a genepool that require epistatic interactions to be expressed and a history of natural selection has removed other genes from many of the loci where those genes are found then what happens when pairings are made with individuals who do have other alleles at those loci?

The interbeeding of different species is not rare in nature. When the environments the parents occupy meet at the borders by a gradual transition the hybrids can even survive as transient groups that have a chance of breeding with the parent populations. Sometimes they can become separate species. Most of the time, especially when the niches the parents occupy change abruptly with little mixed borders, the offspring become genetic dead ends. This can distance the parent populations resulting in less overlap of the genepools.

The offspring and all future descendants may lack the necessary genes to express many of the parents' phenotypes thus lacking specialized characteristics. When the two groups of organisms are distant enough there may be too many mismatches to ever come together in significant numbers in the mixed descendants.

Consider a gene that affects multiple characteristics. Some may be relatively benign while others can be strongly selected for. When the strongly selected phenotypes that the gene affects cannot be expressed due to lacking epistatic genes required for the phenotype then the gene will only persist at random as the individuals with it do not have better survival nor reproductive success. This gene may also express other characteristics that are mildly selected against. It has only become fixed in the parent population due to the benefits that can only be utilized with all the interacting genes also present. It is not true then that an evenly mixed population of hybrids would maintain about 50% of the genes from both parent populations over time. Epistatic relationships would become lost or imbalanced. Some genes would, either by random drift or by selection through the other phenotypes they affect, become less common.

Allele is a term for any gene in a particular location in your DNA (locus) on a particular chromosome. So in simple terms if there were genes for short medium and tall and they all reside in the same location on a particular chromosome then they are alleles. You could only have two of them one from each parent.

DNA is a molecule that stores genetic information and is composed of nucleotides. In simple terms these form codons (sets of 3 nucleotides) that code for particular amino acids. Proteins are composed from these which can then construct many other types of molecules in an organisms body.

Gene is a coding instruction unit of DNA. In simple terms it can be said to encode one product (though there is much more complexity this definition is sufficient for understanding the concepts described here).

Genotype refers to the particular set of genes a single organism has and is commonly used to describe a particular subset of a genome being observed (Genome for all sets of genes)

Locus (pl. locii) is a term for the location of a gene in a particular chromosome (humans gametes have 23 chromosomes so 46 for a normal human)

Phenotype refers to the expressed trait of an organism. (uncommonly used Phenome describes the set of all phenotypes)

Understand genetics to understand life. Everyone should know some of the basics.
Individual traits vary. Groups of individuals can be classified based on common genes that occur in varying proportions compared to other groups.
Some genes are unique to some groups occurring at nearly 0% in other groups.

c59ac3 No.3742

>>3741
>The offspring and all future descendants may lack the necessary genes to express many of the parents' phenotypes thus lacking specialized characteristics. When the two groups of organisms are distant enough there may be too many mismatches to ever come together in significant numbers in the mixed descendants.
Individuals might be resistant to heat stress but then lack proper hydration regulation through sweat responses. Individuals may be able to construct complex physical mechanisms due to their neurology but lack the dexterity to enact them. There are many examples. Some may seem like there would be no disadvantage in a technologically advanced society. What about the childhood development?

In other words, a gene can be overridden by a gene on an entirely different chromosome. This means that a "stupidity gene 121" could be disabled by "disabler gene 121" on a totally different chromosome. Let's say a mutation created S121 5000 years ago in the population of a small island in the Pacific, and so D121 was under positive selective pressure, and today both genes are found in 100% of the population. None of them are stupid, because they all have D121 as well.

Now the natives from another island show up. They have a totally different stupidity gene someplace totally different, let's call it S466, and their own disabler gene, D466, on another chromosome. The chieftan of the first village marries the daughter of the chieftan of the second.

The children of this pairing will have one copy of S121, one copy of D121, one copy of S466, and one copy of D466. This will usually mean their children will not be stupid, because most of the time a single copy of a disabler gene is enough to eliminate the trait. The first generation has what's called "hybrid vigour", with most of the positive traits of both parent races (positive genes tend to be dominant) without most of the negative (which tend to be recessive)

The problem happens in the next generation AFTER the populations mix; the grandchildren of the two chieftans have below average intelligence, because most of them are born lacking at least one of the disabler genes they need to avoid the effects of one of the negative traits… some are born with BOTH negative traits expressed. Some minority of them will be born with both traits suppressed (and the luckiest won't have the negative genes at all) but these lucky few are outnumbered by their stupid siblings and cousins.

And of course, in reality, there are far more of these hidden genes than just two, and they effect more than just intelligence.

ee2cb5 No.3743

thank you for this

96c1b1 No.3744

Great post dear anon.

c59ac3 No.8427

>>3744
My pleasure

b4b3b8 No.8430

File: 1428305594489.png (124.84 KB, 602x599, 602:599, 1424166723067.png)

>>3742
That was a good explanation

>MFW I'm in that generation after the populations mix

826fcb No.8444

Excellent post.

39a290 No.8482

>>3741
Brilliant stuff.

Please write a blog of some kind to talk about this too or something. I think it is very important and the majority of people know fuck all about it.

Far too often I hear people believe that mixed race is "healthier". I had never seen such key aspects of the genetics so succinctly put as you have done. I would find it easier to think about bone marrow transport difficulties or social effects as obvious downsides.

As a WM who fucks a lot of AF this kind of is quite important to me as to who I'll actually settle down with. The effects on neurology would be huge I would think down the line….

With advances in genetic engineering though wouldn't it be possible to further knock out bad genes and even promote the suppressors? I know China is doing a lot of work here.

97d41a No.8511

File: 1428322371636.jpg (152.63 KB, 750x500, 3:2, liger.jpg)

Very interesting. There an article here that claims that third cousins is the ideal balance between the dangers of cross-breeding OP described and the obvious dangers of inbreeding

http://io9.com/5863666/why-inbreeding-really-isnt-as-bad-as-you-think-it-is

However, doesn't what you say imply that in the very long term (over hundereds or thousands of generations) cross-breeding is good as the few lucky induviduals born without the bad genes will spread their genes further and everntually a new gene pool will emerge with both bad genes purged?

dbb1e7 No.10750

Can anyone confirm that humans and nigs are different species?

b438da No.10752

>>3741
Couldn't you say that there are different genes within different white European populations and that breeding between different groups of european whites would cause these same problems?

acaed7 No.10825

>>8482

hapas end up fucking crazy

don't racemix

dea123 No.10870

>>10750
No, because it's silly and untrue.

>>10752
Yep, but far less dramatically to the point of insignificance. It's a multidimensional continuum, the more distant the populations the greater the risk. In an more isolated population dysgenic evolution tends to weed out the negative combinations over time, this is how complimentary networks of genes arise in the first place.

Often natural selection is not enough. In Europe we have the problem of cystic fibrosis and the pleiotropy of its modifier genes. Some victims have an arrangement of genes that flood their respiratory system with mucus so viscous mucolytics are ineffectual. Which is worse a semi-retarded mongrel with dark eyes or a European who can barely breathe?

This isn't the best argument against miscegenation but OP should be thanked for raising awareness.

a3789d No.10876

File: 1428601818824.jpg (14.58 KB, 550x386, 275:193, XA.jpg)

>>10870
>No, because it's silly and untrue.
>It sounds crazy therefore I rule it untrue
You are wrong here. There is no clear definition for species (nor for race). Considering niggers have on certain fronts more things in common with primates than Europeans, a case can be definitely be made for different species.

a3789d No.10879


b6ca3c No.10903

File: 1428603541678.jpg (25.26 KB, 350x466, 175:233, 1412978412918.jpg)

Great, quality post anon.

dea123 No.10924

>>10876
>>10879
Nigger, what is a X/A ratio?

a3789d No.10941

>>10924
X-Chromosome/Autosome ratio
I provided the paper for you to read, it's in there…

dea123 No.10970

>>10941
> It is known that whereas DNA sequences in humans diverged from those in bonobos and chimpanzees five to seven million years ago, DNA sequences in bonobos diverged from those in chimpanzees around two million years ago. Bonobos are thus closely related to chimpanzees.
Quelle suprise. I wonder what this means.

>Differences in female and male population history, for example, with respect to reproductive success and migration rates, are of special interest in understanding the evolution of social structure. To approach this question in the Pan ancestor, we compared the inferred ancestral population sizes of the X chromosome and the autosomes. Because two-thirds of X chromosomes are found in females whereas autosomes are split equally between the two sexes, a ratio between their effective population sizes (X/A ratio) of 0.75 is expected under random mating. The X/A ratio in the Pan ancestor, corrected for the higher mutation rate in males, is 0.83 (0.75–0.91) (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Information, section 8). Similarly, we estimated an X/A ratio of 0.85 (0.79–0.93) for present-day bonobos using Ulindi single nucleotide polymorphisms in 200-kb windows (Supplementary Information, section 9). Under the assumption of random mating, this would mean that on average two females reproduce for each reproducing male. The difference in the variance of reproductive success between the sexes certainly contributes to this observation, as does the fact that whereas bonobo females often move to new groups upon maturation, males tend to stay within their natal group20. Because both current and ancestral X/A ratios are similar to each other and also to some human groups (Fig. 4), this suggests that they may also have been typical for the ancestor shared with humans.

The expected ratio is 0,75 from 3/4, from XX,XY. I won't pretend to understand what the table illustrates but, in any case, it has nothing to do with genetic distance. What I gather is that because the X:A ratio is so high for Africans, bold (Under the assumption of random mating, this would mean that on average two females reproduce for each reproducing male) is also true of them. I don't know how they actually derived this from the ratio but they're the professionals, not me.

The paper as whole is trying to argue that our common ancestor with Bonobos was more social than our shared common ancestor with chimps. The abstract is just misleading because, I feel, it excessively talks about humans.

You have no common sense.

a3789d No.10980

>>10970
I didn't mention genetics or argued for genetic distance, anon. I was just talking about species/race not having any definition to go by and thus is sort of an (subjective) judgement on the part of the taxonomist. Whether the graph indicates something genetic or social (if you can even separate the two) is besides my point. It would not be factually wrong to claim that Negroids are a different species from Europoids/Cro-Magnon/whatever, there are significant differences genetically and behaviourally to make a case for different species.

I am not knowledgeable enough in genetics, while only having superficial knowledge of it, to argue on the graph or the paper.

And I don't see how any of this is an indication of me not having common sense.

dea123 No.10987

>>10980
>there are significant differences genetically and behaviourally to make a case for different species.
>significant
I don't think so. We can all produce viable offspring and whatever else

>Considering niggers have on certain fronts more things in common with primates than Europeans

This doesn't make a group of people not human ipso facto. I said you lacked common sense because you used that image as evidence for your opinion.

Congolese pygmies are four foot tall, making them just taller than chimpanzees (3'9). Would I be right in thinking that pygmies are in fact chimps (pan) and not humanoid (homo) by that fact alone? No. It's silly and that image is silly.

http://www.dailystormer.com/black-africans-are-genetically-closer-to-bonobos-than-to-white-humans/

a3789d No.11000

>>10987
>I don't think so. We can all produce viable offspring and whatever else
Come on, man. You should know damned well about ligers, mules and other 'viable' interspecies offspring. Interbreeding is no indication of anything.

>Would I be right in thinking that pygmies are in fact chimps (pan) and not humanoid (homo) by that fact alone? No. It's silly and that image is silly.

I expected you to have some foreknowledge on some significant differences between us and negroids, no reason to strawman. I didn't argue that they weren't human either, just different from homo sapiens sapiens. It's not like niggers are that sapient anyway, they are so retarded that don't even grasp gradations.
And yes dark skinned, kinky haired, four foot tall peoples with significantly lacking mental faculties can certainly be argued for being a different species falling under the homo umbrella.

But my point is that you can't absolutely dismiss or confirm either way because a species does not have a scientific definition.

dea123 No.11045

File: 1428613580630.gif (54.8 KB, 1330x582, 665:291, salter_1.gif)

>>11000
Height is the analogue to the x/a ratio, an feature some humans have in common with bonobos. I wouldn't call it a strawman because the nature of the argument hasn't been perverted. Both arguments are fallacious for the exact same reasons.

>I didn't argue that they weren't human either, just different from homo sapiens sapiens. It's not like niggers are that sapient anyway, they are so retarded that don't even grasp gradations.

Then that would be a subspecies and is not what I'm arguing against. See >>10750.

>And yes dark skinned, kinky haired, four foot tall peoples with significantly lacking mental faculties can certainly be argued for being a different species falling under the homo umbrella.

Not objectively.

>a species does not have a scientific definition.

Neither does race but does that mean we should go about inventing species and races wherever we see fit to do so? If you want to say that Negroids are an independent species then demonstrate why they should be.

fc1a38 No.11087

Very interesting thread.

I only noticed it now.

Wish we could merge this with the one about the images of human genetics and discuss about the images themselves as well.

c59ac3 No.11297

>>8482
This is going to definitely expand. I don't know about blog aspect but there will be a massive redpilling.

c59ac3 No.11299

>>10752
You only need a few generations for single gene mutations but you need much longer than that and well separated populations for these kinds of interactions to establish and for such problems to appear from mixing. That is one of the ways speciation ensues to eventually get populations that are distinct enough not to naturally breed.

3b6618 No.11456

Most of this is going over my head

b0174a No.11481

>>8511
>However, doesn't what you say imply that in the very long term (over hundereds or thousands of generations) cross-breeding is good as the few lucky induviduals born without the bad genes will spread their genes further and everntually a new gene pool will emerge with both bad genes purged

We have practically disabled natural selection. People don't die because of lack of intelligence anymore, they get on welfare or work at Wal-Mart. If anything, stupid people get more children too.

c59ac3 No.12080

>>11456
take it a sentence at a time

3e9f68 No.12609

OP will you explain epigenetics please?

98b309 No.12834

Bump

2c94cd No.13076

Can anyone give us more genetics red pills?

07a156 No.13140

>>13076
look up epigenetics.

no disease is genetic, everything can be turned on and off.

like for breast cancer, they found 10% of women with breast cancer have a SNIRP single nucleotide random mistake in their code, the same one

but if you look at a population of women who have that single mutation, only 10% of them get cancer.

so its very not definite science but they say "has a genetic basis" as if, if you have it you will get the disease but its very mich not black and white like that. the story is the same with genes for intelligence and violence

c59ac3 No.13536

>>13140

>so its very not definite science but they say "has a genetic basis" as if, if you have it you will get the disease but its very mich not black and white like that. the story is the same with genes for intelligence and violence

No the story is not the same. You didn't get the first story right and the second is not the same.


99469a No.13556

>>13140

>no disease is genetic

Except that is bullshit, missing certain genes can cause certain diseases to arise regardless of epigenetics. But you are right in the fact that what a lot of people refer to with "genetic" is actually caused by epigenetics.

>inb4 "oh it's not a disease, it's a SYNDROME"


c59ac3 No.15266

>>13556

Thank you, this is something that hurts some people feelings.


00c5d1 No.15268

>>10987

>viable fertile young

That has nothing to do with being the same fucking species. There are numerous examples of mammals producing hybrids which are both viable and fertile (bears, fucking Google it). And there are even more examples of hybrids being produced which are viable and fertile, but can only mate with one of the parent populations, not other hybrids, and there have been absolutely no studies into how commonly mongrel humans are able to breed with other mongrel humans.


00c5d1 No.15269

>>10987

No

But you would be equally wrong in thinking them home sapiens (but shhh there's only one race the Hugh Man races)


00c5d1 No.15270

>>11299

>naturally breed

And there is the clincher in the definition of species. It refers to breeding hindered only by natural boundaries as well as the physical inability to it.

Whereas i am naturally prevented from mixing because the notion inspires a most ill feeling deep in my gullet.


c59ac3 No.15442

>>15270

Behavioral barriers to reproduction are valid speciation forces.


72cb78 No.15454

Do you see any correlation between the Toba explosion genetic bottleneck and the divergence of negroid and caucasoid/mongoloid races? What do you think of the populations of aborigines on the Andamans that don't share the same common ancestor as continental homo sapiens?


a76e9a No.15470

OP, could you explain Lewontin's Fallacy?


000000 No.15498

>>15470

Not OP, but looking it up, I've found this.

http://atavisionary.com/wikipedia-in-action-on-race/

>I like to refer to Lewontin’s fallacy frequently when debating people who deny the biological basis of race. Wikipedia, while clearly not perfect, did have a reasonable article (at least for quick referral of lay-people) on the paper written by W.F. Edwards which coined “Lewontin’s fallacy.”(1) A brief overview is that in the 1970’s an academic social justice advocate published a paper(2) in which he claimed that there is more variation within individuals from one race than there is variation between different racial populations. So much that you can regularly find people of different races who are more similar to each other than they are to members of their own race. However, the first paper linked to above shows that the problem mainly stems from the fact that very few loci were studied by Lewontin. Allele frequencies differ between populations and with enough loci studied, the ability to distinguish between racial groups based purely on genetic information is quite high. Virtually 100%.

>This is a statistical problem, not biological fact. If you consider thousands of SNPS at once, then you have virtually no chance of encountering this problem.

>You might object that “thousands” is a huge number and that this demonstration of statistical problems convincingly shows that races don’t differ if it takes that many to reduce error to zero. However, the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. If you were to use 3000 base pair SNPs, which is consistent with the minimum in the paper, then you need to utilize only .0001% of the whole genome to reduce this error to zero. Or, if you want to consider SNPs only, there are about 10 million SNPs in the human genome. A sample of 3000 SNPs is only .003% of the total number of SNPs that could be used. This is a conservative estimate because their figure 2 indicates it only takes about 1000 SNPS to minimize this error. In other words, it only takes a vanishingly small fraction of the genome to relieve you of this statistical error that can find that humans from two different races are more similar to each other than either is to their own race.

It seems Lewontin came to his conclusion before doing any actual research.


000000 No.15501

>>15498

To clarify, apparently he made the claim that there being more genetic variation within races than between them meant that you couldn't distinguish between them altogether, and thus race didn't exist. But the variation within groups is seemingly irrelevant, since you can still distinguish between them.

Again, I'm not OP so I'm not sure this is accurate.


c59ac3 No.15505

File: 1435215368379.jpg (291 KB, 1161x767, 1161:767, 1481029847149194.jpg)

>>15501

>>15498

good explanations


c9c1b6 No.16612

File: 1443663445717.png (30.73 KB, 113x90, 113:90, ThisFuckingGuy.png)

>>8430

I'm 3-5 generations removed. Am i still fucked?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]