Quote: (12-04-2016 03:53 PM)TheMost Wrote:
Quote: (12-04-2016 03:37 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:
Quote: (12-04-2016 03:15 PM)TheMost Wrote:
That is inaccurate. False even. Every time you mix the genes, you create new opportunities for wierd disorders. You get an established blood line, and the kinks get worked out, or at least become known quantities. Speaking from experience and broad observation here. One small example: I knew a Portuguese/African/Indian mix; she had a blood disorder so wierd only 6 other people in the world had it; it was like auto-immune disease, but worked through an entirely different mechanism and part of the cell structure.
I took genetics in college, have a PhD in Biotechnology, have done research and written patents in microbiology,have a medical degree and am currently studying for USMLE Step 2CK which I take on December 20th.
Your education may be high status, and very thorough. But on this topic, it is incomplete. Extreme consanguinity over generations isn't good, but neither is outbreeding. Interfertility is a buried topic, but it is very real. African Americans have a lot more genetic health problems than their pure blood kin back in Africa. Similar for half-breeds and mulatoes of all types. Just because you see some attractive looking examples of blood mixing, you don't know about the hidden disorders and syndromes they have to deal with. It takes several generations for distinct genomes to adapt to each other. Hell, it took 100 years before wheat adapted to North America, and 100 years before potatoes adapted to Europe.
Chiming in here as a former plant breeder. Sure its not humans but its got a much longer history with experiments on hundreds of generations of plants.
Breeding is a balancing act and its limited to the genetic diversity within a species to begin with. Breeding within a population to keep traits or increase traits (height, eye color etc) narrows the diversity of the population while increasing those traits and increases the occurrence of genetic diseases like dwarfism etc.
On the other hand, breeding outside of a population, increases diversity and the scope of potential gene expression. You get fewer genetic defects but you also start to lose some of the beneficial traits of the bred population. Ie. if you take a population of pine trees bred for timber production and breed them with general trees found in a park you lose height and shape uniformity.
Last, when you breed plants with far distant relatives you can get hybrid vigor results in with total failures, the positive effects are that you get super trees...but their ability to reproduce is gone, they can only be regenerated clonally.
In my opinion, gene pools are gene pools, if an individual has poor genetics (genetic heart disease etc) they would benefit from mixed race breeding more than they would having kids with someone from their home area or race. If a person has superior genetics (height, musculature, intelligence) they likely would lose out with mixed race breeding, and would be better off breeding with someone else of superior genetics within their own genetic population as the chances that they could maintain or gain on their current rare traits would be higher.
I think that general health of a person for breeding is much more important than race...Jeb bush and his wife are great examples of why race alone isn't a good rule.
Genetics aside, Roosh does raise good points about the cultural aspects of mixed race individuals though. I'd be interested in seeing animal behavior examples of how say, a wolf pack accepts a wolf/poodle hybrid. Either that or look at cases where racially different adopted children are raised and see if there are any mental health differences.
Thats as far as I'll go with that though, as commenting on genetics in a race thread is treading on thin ice