[Spike]

(11-13-2012 04:34 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I don't see races disappearing. Most will still prefer their own when it comes down to marriage and family. Neil, I would think some of the diversity you see in the Netherlands is due to the fact that they have Caribbean colonies, which are largely people of color, so they are able to easily immigrate?

yes.

[Spike]

(11-13-2012 09:01 PM)j r Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:47 PM)Asaxon Wrote:  

We are all the same genotype? If this were true we would also be the same phenotype.... Obviously, this is not the case. Also, races are genetically and anatomically different. No amount of kumbayaaa can make that reality go away...

As for Neil's original post, I don't think we're going to end up as one gray race anytime soon. Look at a place like Eastern Europe, what's between Turkey and, say, Germany. Think about how much history has gone down in that area in the past couple of thousand years. Think about the different people that have come and gone through there. And yet, there's still lots of distinct ethnic groups.

JR is one of the few who seems to understand my original post. The question was: where are we going as the human race. The article I read in this scientific magazine clearly stated that in the future we will all look the same. Whites,Latins,Europeans,slavics,nordics will all be outbreeded in the future. In fact most Latin people are already of color. It's simple math.

Look at this image (In Dutch but it's quite self explanatory) of the population in 2050 (not that far away)
Although not known as great interracial breeders (IRT anyone), the Indian population will surpass the 2 billion mark in just 30 something years ( I counted Pakistanies and Bangladesh as Indians too, because they are one and the same basically).
If you look at the population growth in the bottom, you will see that the population growth lines for North America,Europe,Oceania and Latin America are nearly flat and the lines for Africans and Asians go straight up. (The Asian one bends after 2050) And remember that The America's and Europe are already partly mixed.
[attachment=8696]

You can talk all the recessive genes you want but this is already the situation in 2050. Now think 1000 or 2000 years into the future. There will be no more blue, green or grey eyecolor anymore. No more blonds, brunettes or redheads (already becoming rare nowadays). We will all look the same.

What do you think like mankind is going to evolve too? I have always wondered about this since the first time I heard the song "in the year 2525" when I was a kid. This song might not even be as far off as we think.

[Excelsior]

(11-14-2012 05:08 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

You can talk all the recessive genes you want but this is already the situation in 2050. Now think 1000 or 2000 years into the future. There will be no more blue, green or grey eyecolor anymore. No more blonds, brunettes or redheads (already becoming rare nowadays). We will all look the same.

This is only possible if those who possess said recessive traits do not pass on their genetic material at all. If they do and there are still carriers for those traits in the future, then they'll persist. Human genetics are too diverse for everyone to "look the same", even in the presence of mass racial mixing (i.e. Brazil, Belize, The DR and most of Latin America). This is not how our genes work. This has been explained to you quite clearly already (yes, I understood your original post). There is no logical way around this reality, though you can choose to ignore it if you want.

Quote:

What do you think like mankind is going to evolve too ?

Nothing dramatically different from what we are used to. Whites will probably make up a smaller percentage of the human population than they do now, and Northeast Asians will also be less common on a percentage basis. People of mixed heritage will be more commonplace than they are today. That's about it.

We're not evolving to a totally uniform mass of humanity-that is mere folly promoted by certain media outlets to get people talking, and it has little basis in scientific reality.

[speakeasy]

Neil also seems to be presupposing that all those billions of Africans and Indians are headed to Europe(to genetically annihilate them). 99% of those highly impoverished people will probably never travel more than a few hundred miles from their birthplace.

The white race will decline and make up a gradually smaller percent of humanity. But it's not because of non-whites. It's because of feminism. Western women want the Sex in the City lifestyle and having a large family is an inconvenience. The Western woman is pushing back family rearing so far that many will not make it the finish line before their biological counter times out. Add to that easy availability of abortion and her ability to earn a living without a man and from that you get plunging birthrates. Keep in mind that birthrates are plunging in other nations where feminism is taking hold, such as Japan. It is now starting to happen in Latin America. The countries exploding in growth are the ones where feminism has no hold in society. Russia may be the only exception of a non-feminized country with a falling birthrate, but that probably has to do with the shortage of available decent men.

So Neil, if you want to see your race replenish themselves, start with destroying feminism.

Edit -- Neil, not accusing you of racism at all. No worries man.

[Spike]

@athlone. Are you saying that for example blue eyes will still be there after 5 generations of brown eyed fathers? or ten generations? all of a sudden a blue eyed baby will be born?

@Speakeasy. I'm not assuming that. I'm just saying that over a long period of time the white races and it's genes will be extinct. I'm talking 100 hundreds of generations here.

What do you guys not understand about the term "hundreds of generations" or "1000's of years"?

If posters here are gonna make me out as some racist then i'm out of this thread. My English is not good enough to debate a comprehensive subject like this. I'm happy to talk about it MY native language.

[speakeasy]

(11-14-2012 05:45 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

@athlone

Are you saying that for example blue eyes will still be there after 5 generations of brown eyed fathers? or ten generations? all of a sudden a blue eyed baby will be born?

Recessive genes will never completely go away:



Here is a VERY extreme case:

This too:

They will just become less frequent. Maybe they will virtually vanish at some very distant point in the future when the numbers of people without the recessive genes becomes an every larger percentage of humanity.

[Excelsior]

(11-14-2012 05:45 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

@athlone. Are you saying that for example blue eyes will still be there after 5 generations of brown eyed fathers? or ten generations? all of a sudden a blue eyed baby will be born?

Again: the only way to get rid of them would be to eliminate the recessive traits by preventing those who have them from reproducing. This is not practical given the sheer number of carriers across the planet (not all of whom have decided to stop reproducing the way white Europeans have).

Once again, I hearken back to high school bio: if carriers of recessive traits still exist (even if they both express dominant traits i.e. brown eyes) and they decide to reproduce together, recessive traits will persist and continue to be expressed. Your scenario is only possible if one assumes that said carriers cease to exist/reproduce. This is unlikely, again, because these carriers are not just very low-fertility Europeans. They also exist among more fecund groups (ex: diasporan Africans, Eurasians, Near-Easterners, etc).

If the carriers continue to exist and continue to mate without restrictions (often resulting in their mating with one another), then your scenario holds no realistic weight. Recessive traits will persist, because they will be continually infused into coming generations. We are debating a scenario involving gene dispersal and another involving gene elimination-the science shows that the latter simply doesn't have any grounding in reality.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

A lot of people are shouting that blondness, blue-eyedness, and paleness are genetically recessive.

Where's the evidence for this?

As far as I remember, eye colour is a bizarre mish-mash of genes that does not follow mendellian inheritance. In my own family, my father has green eyes, my mom has blue eyes, I have grey eyes and my brother has brown eyes. The eye colour of a baby born to parents with mixed eye colours can be anything.

Skin colour does not follow recessive/dominance patterns either, the genes interact and create random blends.

Hair colour is the only phenotype that seems to follow the dominance/recessive pattern somewhat but even that has exceptions to the rule.

So this myth that whiteness is recessive needs to stop.

Check out this article on mixed race twins with pictures:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new...twins.html

The one twin came out black and the other twin came out white, how do you explain that as a recessive vs dominant thing?

[Deluge]

Reading further into Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? I'm surprised by how low intermarriage is for some groups. South Asian and Muslim intermarriage rates don't surpass 10% in the 2nd generation. Only Black and East Asian minorities have high intermarriage rates (more than 50% in the 2nd gen), as well as Algerians and Morrocans in France (who are a lot less religious then their fellow Muslims).

[Spike]

delete

[Excelsior]

(11-14-2012 07:28 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

A lot of people are shouting that blondness, blue-eyedness, and paleness are genetically recessive.

Where's the evidence for this?

Here, here, here and here.

You're correct to note that eye-color is a more complicated subject than the simple "Brown dominant, blue recessive" narrative (this allows for one to express colors that lie between these two on the color spectrum). There are a number of other genes that can influence the shade of the expressed color, and cause folks with purely recessive traits (blue eyes) to produce brown eyed children or to cause the expression of other eye colors (grey, green, hazel, etc).

The fact that lighter eyes/features are generally recessive, however, still remains, even if the larger story is more complicated. Their expression requires the presence of said "lighter" genes in both parents, which allows for the genetic interaction/combination to take place and pass them on to the child. If one parent completely lacks that genotype (read: genes code only for brown/dark brown eyes), you will not get light features barring a mutation.

In short, lighter features require a genetic presence on both ends of the parental spectrum in order to be expressed. Darker features need only be present on one side. If even one end lacks the ancestral/genetic presence of lighter features, you will not see those lighter features expressed in the offspring. This is why they're recessive.

Quote:

As far as I remember, eye colour is a bizarre mish-mash of genes that does not follow mendellian inheritance. In my own family, my father has green eyes, my mom has blue eyes, I have grey eyes and my brother has brown eyes. The eye colour of a baby born to parents with mixed eye colours can be anything.

You are correct, assuming that the baby's parents do in fact possess mixed eye color to begin with or have inherited the genes to code for said colors from ancestors.

If one of the parents does not possess this mixed eye color and does not have it in his/her ancestral history, you will always get brown eyes, even if his/her partner has the genes for lighter eye color. This is why said brown eyes are considered a "dominant" trait-in the absence of a heterogenous genetic picture in both parents, they will always take the lead (again, barring mutation).

Your own phenotype (grey eyes) is only possible because you had two parents who possessed the genes necessary to code for lighter eye color. Had one of your parents lacked this history (i.e. say your father came from a population/genepool with no lighter features in its genetic history and no recent admixture from fairer populaces to throw them in), you would be brown eyed, though you would probably carry the traits for lighter features (inherited from mom) and have the ability to pass them to your own offspring.

Quote:

So this myth that whiteness is recessive needs to stop.

Check out this article on mixed race twins with pictures:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new...twins.html

The one twin came out black and the other twin came out white, how do you explain that as a recessive vs dominant thing?

This isn't hard to explain. Both parents possess recessive traits, and these traits combined in such a way as to give each child a different phenotype. The lighter features in two of those children are only possible because the Black father in question likely carries some of the code for lighter features in his own genetic history (read: he had fairer caucasian ancestors whose genes have been passed down the line to him). For lighter features to be expressed, children must inherit a combination that is only possible if the "light" codes exist in the genetic history of both parents.

That was the case here. It isn't uncommon for mixed couples like this (or any couple with partners who posses some genetic biodiversity) to produce several children who have different shades/ Many black diasporan families (including my own) have seen this. The only unique thing here is that each twin inherited a very different combination, and that this occurred twice.

If the father here had lacked this diverse genetic history (as individuals from within some African and Asian populations without recent European admixture tend to do), then what you see there likely would not have happened. The children would all be much darker, because those features (brown eyes, dark hair, dark skin, etc) are dominant and only need to be present in one parent in order to take a phenotypical lead. Their lighter counterparts cannot express themselves without being present on both sides of the parental equation.

[Timoteo]

(11-14-2012 05:45 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

@athlone. Are you saying that for example blue eyes will still be there after 5 generations of brown eyed fathers? or ten generations? all of a sudden a blue eyed baby will be born?

@Speakeasy. I'm not assuming that. I'm just saying that over a long period of time the white races and it's genes will be extinct. I'm talking 100 hundreds of generations here.

What do you guys not understand about the term "hundreds of generations" or "1000's of years"?

If posters here are gonna make me out as some racist then i'm out of this thread. My English is not good enough to debate a comprehensive subject like this. I'm happy to talk about it MY native language.

I think you're being overly sensitive Neil. No one has accused you of being a race troll or a racist. We simply don't agree with the premise of your original post. Disagreement doesn't mean we don't understand what you're proposing. We just don't agree with it. For all of the characteristics you list to disappear, they would ALL have to reproduce with one of those darker-skinned immigrants you describe, and even then, some of those traits will still emerge (as Athlone so eloquently discussed). Yes, there will be far fewer people that look like that, but they won't disappear. It's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that all whites with blond hair/blue, green, gray, hazel eyes will marry interracially and have biracial offspring. As stated in another post, the greater threat to these characteristics disappearing is those women simply not having children and passing on those genes. So even with the numbers of Southeast Asian immigrants growing, they'll still largely reproduce among themselves. If you fear whites disappearing, you need to pitch in and stop all of this galavanting around the globe. Settle down, snatch up a blondie, and have a bunch of kids brother. Now chill out for a minute while I cue up Stevie Wonder/Paul McCartney's "Ebony and Ivory"...HA HA!

[Giovonny]

(11-13-2012 09:51 PM)_GQ_ Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 08:59 PM)AlbertoDelMuerto Wrote:  

I am mixed race, and I am not proud of it, I'd rather be just Mexican or just Arab, but not mixed...

It's all beginning to make sense now...

Yes, do I detect some self-hatred??? Wishing that you were someone else??? Wishing you were another race??

This is not good for your game! You should accept, love, and embrace yourself more then anyone else in the world!

Self-hate is a game killer!

(11-14-2012 01:18 AM)Giovonny Wrote:  

Aren't most Mexicans mixed race?

(11-14-2012 02:00 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

As a population, Mexicans are generally racially "mixed" by default.

(11-14-2012 02:24 AM)houston Wrote:  

YeAh, you're right Gio. That's why Mexicans can look so different

Alberto,

Even if you were 100% Mexican, you would still be of mixed race. I suspect that Arabs are also somewhat mixed.

We have been traveling around the world fighting and fucking each others women forever. The Vikings, the Moors, the Spanish, the Dutch, etc., etc.

[JJ Roberts]

Neil, all human being used to be the same. Brown hair brown eyes.

Everything else (blond hair, blue eyes etc) is a genetic mutation.

There will be more genetic mutations in the future.

[speakeasy]

(11-14-2012 02:36 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

Neil, all human being used to be the same. Brown hair brown eyes.

Everything else (blond hair, blue eyes etc) is a genetic mutation.

There will be more genetic mutations in the future.

Exactly. That's my point. As long as we have different environments on earth, there will always be different and new genepools being created as a reaction to those environments. There was a time when all people looked like that caveman on those Geico commercials. People have this idea that races are these static, permanent phenotypes. Or that we reach a certain point(homo sapiens) and then that's the final version of humanity. Birds used to be dinosaurs. Marine mammals like whales came from land creatures. Who the hell knows what humans will be in the distant future. We are all constantly evolving and what we look like now won't be what we look like a million years from now. Why even worry about it? We'll be dead eons before any of this even matters.

[Giovonny]

Is it true we all started off as Africans? Did we all start off black/brown???

Fuck - i cant stop trolling!

I just wanna know the truth!

[Bacchus]

The world population is expected to reach 10 billion in forty years. The earth will not be able to sustain that level for very long, and a massive disruptive event will throw an evolutionary curveball.

http://http://www.orionmagazine.org/inde...ticle/7146

Quote:

If we follow Gause’s pattern, growth will continue at a delirious speed until we hit the second inflection point. At that time we will have exhausted the resources of the global petri dish, or effectively made the atmosphere toxic with our carbon-dioxide waste, or both. After that, human life will be, briefly, a Hobbesian nightmare, the living overwhelmed by the dead. When the king falls, so do his minions; it is possible that our fall might also take down most mammals and many plants. Possibly sooner, quite likely later, in this scenario, the earth will again be a choir of bacteria, fungi, and insects, as it has been through most of its history.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(11-14-2012 10:20 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

This is why said brown eyes are considered a "dominant" trait-in the absence of a heterogenous genetic picture in both parents, they will always take the lead (again, barring mutation).

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

On a further note, the newest genetic research suggestes that mutation in-and-of itself cannot explain why some blue-eyed parents can give birth to brown-eyed children (here's a cool article on the subject : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...0606.x/pdf)

In summary: the classically 'dominant' traits are sometimes not so dominant, 'blackness' is on occasion recessive. The usual argument that a dark-eyed child born to light-eyed parents is only due to mutation does not hold up with the latest genetics research.

[Excelsior]

(11-14-2012 11:50 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  

The world population is expected to reach 10 billion in forty years. The earth will not be able to sustain that level for very long, and a massive disruptive event will throw an evolutionary curveball.

http://http://www.orionmagazine.org/inde...ticle/7146

Quote:

If we follow Gause’s pattern, growth will continue at a delirious speed until we hit the second inflection point. At that time we will have exhausted the resources of the global petri dish, or effectively made the atmosphere toxic with our carbon-dioxide waste, or both. After that, human life will be, briefly, a Hobbesian nightmare, the living overwhelmed by the dead. When the king falls, so do his minions; it is possible that our fall might also take down most mammals and many plants. Possibly sooner, quite likely later, in this scenario, the earth will again be a choir of bacteria, fungi, and insects, as it has been through most of its history.

The link doesn't work, but in any case I see no reason to adhere solely to the pessimistic outlook embodied in the excerpt or in your own reasoning before it. I say this for a couple of reasons:

1. We don't actually know what Earth's human carrying capacity is. Various estimates have put the figure at anywhere from 200 million up to 14 Billion, and some of those estimates themselves have moved up with technological change. There is no firm consensus on 10 Billion being in excess of that capacity, and thus no justification for the claim that such a population is not sustainable.

2. Technological change has the potential to ease many of the growing pains we could deal with. I want to be careful not to present technology as some sort of unlimited panacea-it will not solve all of our problems, nor will it always grow rapidly enough to counter the ones we face before they come. However, I do think it could be very likely to have the capacity to prevent the uniformly dystopian scenario presented above.

That hypothetical is certainly within the realm of possibility, but it should by no means be presented as highly probable, much less certain.