Genetic Freedom

[Bryan_Ekers]

@castaway

You are in fantasy, lala land… Apparently it makes you happy to just say silly things endlessly. - noted.

Anybody can look up genotype and phenotype and discover their precise meaning, notwithstanding your silly remarks.

DNA = 3 billion base pairs. That = genotype.

Phenotype is how the DNA actually manifests; how we actually physically develop from head to tow, inside and out - thus phenotype is never, ever arbitrary… it is just as important is genotype - both are equally important.

Well, it’s true that there are fixed (i.e. not arbitrary) human phenotype characteristics, like having one head, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, ten toes, two lungs, one liver, one stomach etc. etc. etc., and these are only violated in the case of birth defects. Every human on Earth has this design as a basic template, and no amount of cross-breeding is likely to change it.

The problem with your position, as far as I can tell, is that you’re maintaining that “whiteness” is a similarly fixed characteristic, and that it is worthwhile to segregate one’s children to in order to preserve it. The flaw is that you have no means to force your descendants to mate along racial lines, unless you want to create laws that are contrary to established freedoms. Further, your goal is hard to understand. If your plan of Genetic Freedom was implemented, do you believe that through “branching”, your community would produce some alternate human species made up of some kind of pure white strain? Even after fifty generations of selective breeding (or even inbreeding, which I think is implied), your descendants will still be homo sapiens, capable of successfully breeding with other homo sapiens. What will you have accomplished?

If you respect individual freedom and don’t want to force your descendants to comply, you’d have to postulate that people not yet born will voluntarily play along with your plan and mate exclusively with other whites. Above all, I find that incredibly implausible. There is no way to predict what a given individual will find attractive, and I find your notion that some people are mating with people of different races simply because the media has brainwashed them to be completely without merit. The fact that it’s spectacularly obvious to you doesn’t constitute proof, I’m afraid.

[zwaldd]

@castaway

Phenotype is how the DNA actually manifests; how we actually physically develop from head to tow, inside and out - thus phenotype is never, ever arbitrary… it is just as important is genotype - both are equally important.

But grouping by phenotype is arbitrary unless you’re only concerned with what people look like. I’m not saying it’s inherently bad, just that it doesn’t beget any improvements. In fact, it’s probably a wise move if you just want to eliminate spikes in your genetic spectrum.

[castaway]

**

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
“Superficial” is exactly the word for such traits as skin tone, hair colour and eye colour. Within individual familes, there may be considerable variation of these traits, which suggests to me that they are not rigidly genetically defined like the number of fingers or the placement of organs. In fact, there’s no reason the palest person on Earth couldn’t successfully mate with the darkest person, which I also take as evidence that such attributes are of trivial genetic significance.**

Several responses here:

First, superficial is generally characterized as meaning this: 6. insignificant: with little significance or substance.

It took, perhaps 150 thousand years for the human race to brach off into the various ethnic groups. Skin color, eye color and the rest are the result of that. This is hardly something with little significance or substance - it is real genetic code. Also, lighter skin allows people to more easily absorb light in the shade and thus produce vitamin D easier - definately not of little significance or substance. Blue eyes are very pretty - things of that nature enrich life - hardly something I would characterize is of little significance or substance. Same could be said for colorful hair. But eye and hair color are just cosmetic things, sure.

Regarding variance within a family - the more “mixed” a family is, the more variance there will be, of these traits. If a Pure light pigmentation gened person mates with a pure dark pigmented gene person, their family and the following generations will have more variety of coloring… this might stabilize over time depending on the reproductive trends of the future.
Now, if you want to start talking about superintelligence, that represents a departure from your stance of preserving phenotypes, which by definition are visible traits.

oops… for you… you don’t understand phenotypes. You don’t have to “see” phenotypes. They are simply the genetics that actually manifest in the human body. Intelligence is part of phenotype. Genotypes are all 3 billion base pairs, whether they are showing or not. If you look phenotype up in a bad dictionary, it will say “visible traits” and that is easily confusing. If you understand how the word is being used today in the scientific world… well, don’t believe me here is a quote and then a link:

“At the molecular level, for example, phenotype includes all temporal and spatial aspects of gene expression as well as related aspects of the expression, structure, function and spatial localization of proteins.”

http://www.genomecenter.ucdavis.edu/what.html
Since it’s impossible to distinguish a genius from an idiot by mere appearance, I discount intelligence as a phenotype and if you were as schooled in genetics as you claim, you would discount it as well.

see above…
I just have to point out that wherever educational opportunities and good neonatal nutrition exist, superintelligent people can and do pop up, regardless of their skin, hair or eye colour.

We’ve all seen the IQ charts compared with countries of the world. We can keep studying it sure… Today Azkenazi jews are at the top, followed by many oriental groups, then followed by various white groups etc… These are aggregate phenotypes which yield particular probability trends of intelligence. Sure, I know that is an incredibly politically incorrect statement that will draw hatred towards me, but it’s also science - and I’m all for continuing to study it to make sure no mistakes have been made, no problem.
**I’ve seen no evidence that superintelligence is limited to a particular human genotype. **

I don’t know… complicated question to answer. Probability trends are what they are, but isolated cases of any kind can certainly manifest, anywhere on the world. In fact, it is speculated that a change of a single molecule in the body of a “monkey” led to relative superintelligence of that monkey. This mutation then spread and those superintelligent monkeys branched from the stupid monkeys… Thus creating humans eventually. That could happen again, tomorrow, and it could occur to any baby born… hell, perhaps it could happen to a bird or a dolphin. There is something to be said for having genetics that are “ready for the next step” in human evolution though.

Rather, I think it likely that potentially superintelligent people are being lost in harsh environments.

very possible.
I’ve clipped some of the rest of what you said because it dealt with your incorrect perception of the word “phenotype.” Some other things are clipped because I agree with them.
If you decide to talk about preserving whiteness, you risk criticism. Too bad.
Truth be told, if someone came on these boards and decided to talk about preserving blackness (i.e. they felt too many black women were marrying nonblacks) and this should be discouraged for the greater good of black phenotypes, then that person could easily be stigmatized, too. Heck, I’d challenge him in a heartbeat.

Yes, but that is the problem. This instant bias and prejudice against people who pursue genetic freedom is a problem. That’s why I’m here. A black female talk radio host in LA said that for every black man that goes with a white women, that’s one less black man for black women to get together with… she is right, of course - SHE WAS FIRED the next day. Now there’s a tolerant world for you hey. “One non-branching Human Race ONLY” religion. Ah, I think that might be the new phrase.
That’s amusing and nonsensical. So what if white woman/black man pairings are more common than white man/black woman pairings? How is that relevant? There’s an implicit patronizing message in your statement, though. I may be wrong, but are you implying that white women are easily manipulated into mating with men they would not normally find appealing?

This one is easy… “white people” have been brainwashed by Christianity and Jesus for thousands of years. It’s not stretch to think that some white females can be influenced to tilt towards wanting black guys - especially since media is a far more powerful force over the human mind than the little tiny bible.
If so, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a number of white women found that insulting.

Oh, they do, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s true.
As a side note, when you want to present a scientific premise, it helps if you avoid implying that part of your audience is stupid.

We live in a world where most people believe in a fantasy religion. That could be thought us as stupid, on some levels. If people are unwilling to learn new things, they they are kind of stupid. Hey, I corrected your perception of phenotype - aren’t you happy! You learned something new today.
**In any case, what if these white women are just making their individual choices? **

They are, just like everybody who follows Christianity or Islam is simply making the “personal choice” to do so… Choice is an illusion friend - Didn’t you see Matrix?
You have agreed that individuals should be free to make those choices, so why can’t they use penis size, athletic ability and emotionally soothing (not how I would describe it, mind you) hip-hop culture or any criteria they want as selling points?

They can, and they do…
"Emotionally soothing"? Wow, that is so absolutely the opposite of how I’d characterize hip-hop. But I digress.

Your not hip man… you don’t get it. It’s “real” don’t you know. Hip Hop is so down to earth and honest and passionate…
This is another unfortunate example of the poor packaging of your ideas. I need hardly point out that protecting white women from black men is a major theme among white supremacists.

Protecting? Let’s simply try total honesty.
As it stands, though, I find more than enough pseudoscientific hogwash in your position to reject it, personal feelings aside.

Yet, you didn’t know what the world phenotype meant…
it’a not clear to me that you respect or understand genetics at all so your statement that our level of respect and understanding is different sound accurate enough.

Yet, you didn’t know what the world phenotype meant… I’m not trying to rub it in… well, maybe a little bit. It’s just that you composed all this not knowning what phenotype means.
**In these last 150,000 years, homo sapiens has been a remarkably successful species, so the pressure on it to change in any significant way has been pretty low. What changes have occured are fairly minor (i.e. darker skin for the sapiens who live in tropical climates, light skins for those in northern cilmates, epicanthic folds for those who got stuck in that big Mongolian ice age, etc.) **

Hardly… Winters require major genetic changes so the northern humans can survive. Other environments require some changes as well. To suggest that no further mutations have occured is narrow minded. No genetic pressure is needed for mutation - it just happens. Wow, I’m amazed at how easily you dismiss human genetic branching over the past 150,000 years as “insignificant.”
and in any case, such changes did not cause sapiens to branch into different species, else successful cross-breeding of fertile young (i.e. not sterile hybrids like mules) wouldn’t be possible.

Correct. Not yet… Although some people with the wrong blood types cannot mate with each other - I don’t know if this has ethnic trends or not.
I don’t recognize your justification for calling me ignorant

Phenotypes… I’m not trying to be mean. I’m just saying…
** I’m not saying (or promoting the notion of) all humans are of the same race. Rather, I’m saying what many humans characterize as “race” has little or no genetic significance and in fact only has social significance because we choose to let it.**

No, it has aggregate phenotypic significance. The world could be populated by clones, the concept of the branching human race would still be a noble cause of freedom.
But I know for a fact that any of your lily-white grandchildren will be able to successfully mate with any Nigerian, Japanese or Indian that they happen to have the hots for. This will casually undo all your efforts and put a sang-froid smile right on my face.

that you gain emotional pleasure from this thought proves that you follow the “One non-branching human race” religion.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@castaway

Umm… not wanting to be associated with [white supremacists] is being “ashamed.” I’m sure you’ll see your logical error.

Well, umm… it should be pointed out that much of what you’ve been saying in this thread is actually quite identical to a white supremacist agenda. You’ve added a veneer of science, but it isn’t enough to remove the taint.

Also it goes much, much deeper than that. It deals with the dominance of “white people” over the past 400 years. They literally eliminated an entire “race” of people in America to populate it. They didn’t specifically try to do this. They had pressure from europe, pressure to survive - Christian pressures to civilize the world, superior technologies etc.

Well, they also had smallpox on their side. Disease was a far more effective killer that any number of conquistadores.

Let me mentioned something important. Prior to whites dominating much of the world, they were nearly exterminated two times. Once by the Arabs who came all the way up into france before being forced back into their own lands, then again by the Mongels as they traved through russia, and into Germany… They killed and raped and they actually could have exterminated whites for all time if they really did push it, but they decided to return to their homeland because their leader died.

What’s your point? Everybody’s evil and mean? Hardly a news flash.

So white Christians or just plain “whites” are hardly THE aggressors of the world. They are the most recent aggressors, yes. However, I always say that Jews (of whatever genetic variety) deserve just as much credit for all this aggression for two reasons - First, ancient Jewish men wrote the Christian Bible (thanks a lot), and second, Jews are and have historically been dominant within white societies both financially and intellectually speaking.

Well, when they wrote it, it wasn’t a Christian Bible, it was a Jewish Bible. The notion that Jews have been dominant within their societies is also patently wrong, given a long and well-established history of pogroms, expulsions and even death camps directed against Jews all over Europe, i.e. the “white societies”.

skin color alone is a perfectly valid reason to breed a particular way - which means that simply being “white skinned” can be an aggregate phenotypic direction of genetic freedom.

Well, if you want to select breeding partners based on skin colour, go right ahead, but you can’t prove a point with jargon, no matter how many terms you string together. “Aggregate phenotypic direction of genetic freedom” …? Why not just admit you like white women and want to have white children? Why not just admit that you want to force other people, including your own descendants, to do the same? It’s pretty strongly implied.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@castaway

First, superficial is generally characterized as meaning this: 6. insignificant: with little significance or substance.

It took, perhaps 150 thousand years for the human race to brach off into the various ethnic groups. Skin color, eye color and the rest are the result of that. This is hardly something with little significance or substance - it is real genetic code. Also, lighter skin allows people to more easily absorb light in the shade and thus produce vitamin D easier - definately not of little significance or substance. Blue eyes are very pretty - things of that nature enrich life - hardly something I would characterize is of little significance or substance. Same could be said for colorful hair. But eye and hair color are just cosmetic things, sure.

Well, the “enrich life” thing is clearly a personal preference and as such has little value in a scientific discussion.

There are advantages to lighter skin, darker skin, epicanthic folds, etc, as long as you stay in the environment that selected for these traits in the first place. With migration, though, as well as mudane technologies like sunscreen and vitamin pills, the advantages are pretty minor. I’ll admit, though, that when you go to extremes, even minor advantages add up, and some small muscular advantage can explain why blacks occupy a disproportionate number of spaces in certain professional sports.

Regarding variance within a family - the more “mixed” a family is, the more variance there will be, of these traits. If a Pure light pigmentation gened person mates with a pure dark pigmented gene person, their family and the following generations will have more variety of coloring… this might stabilize over time depending on the reproductive trends of the future.

So? Is that bad, or something?

oops… for you… you don’t understand phenotypes. You don’t have to “see” phenotypes. They are simply the genetics that actually manifest in the human body.

Intelligence is part of phenotype. Genotypes are all 3 billion base pairs, whether they are showing or not. If you look phenotype up in a bad dictionary, it will say “visible traits” and that is easily confusing. If you understand how the word is being used today in the scientific world… well, don’t believe me here is a quote and then a link:

“At the molecular level, for example, phenotype includes all temporal and spatial aspects of gene expression as well as related aspects of the expression, structure, function and spatial localization of proteins.”

http://www.genomecenter.ucdavis.edu/what.html

I wasn’t aware Merriam-Webster (which refers to “visible properties”) was a “bad” dictionary. In the page you cite, in the sentence before the one you quoted, the author notes that phenotype is being used in “its broadest definition.” I simply selected an established definition that was narrower than yours.

In any case, the reference to superintelligence remains irrelevant if your goal is to preserve physical features like the colour of hair, skin and eyes. If breeding for intelligence is your goal, you should be seeking to establish breeder communities of smart people, and not just white people. The groups overlap, but are not equivalent.

We’ve all seen the IQ charts compared with countries of the world. We can keep studying it sure… Today Azkenazi jews are at the top, followed by many oriental groups, then followed by various white groups etc… These are aggregate phenotypes which yield particular probability trends of intelligence. Sure, I know that is an incredibly politically incorrect statement that will draw hatred towards me, but it’s also science - and I’m all for continuing to study it to make sure no mistakes have been made, no problem.

Heck, if you want to point out that Africa has fewer doctors, engineers, scientists etc. per capita than other areas, be my guest. What it’ll draw from me (an Ashkenazi Jew, incidentally) isn’t hatred but a counterpoint that if African nations became more stable, less violent, offered better nutrition and education to their citizens and built more schools of higher learning, it’s quite likely that the “trends of intelligence” would change. I propose that such trends are more (or at least equally) environmental than genetic.

I don’t know… complicated question to answer. Probability trends are what they are, but isolated cases of any kind can certainly manifest, anywhere on the world. In fact, it is speculated that a change of a single molecule in the body of a “monkey” led to relative superintelligence of that monkey. This mutation then spread and those superintelligent monkeys branched from the stupid monkeys… Thus creating humans eventually.

You claim to be conversant in genetics yet believe humans evolved from monkeys? I find that stunning and amusing.

That could happen again, tomorrow, and it could occur to any baby born… hell, perhaps it could happen to a bird or a dolphin. There is something to be said for having genetics that are “ready for the next step” in human evolution though.

I seriously doubt intelligence was due to a single mutation. Rather, a series of mutations and natural selection reinforced each other over many thousands of years. How, incidentally, will a selectively bred white community ensure preparedness for the “next step” in evolution?

I’ve clipped some of the rest of what you said because it dealt with your incorrect perception of the word “phenotype.”

Well, as I understand it, you have a wildly incorrect perception of the word “evolution.” Maybe we’re even.

This instant bias and prejudice against people who pursue genetic freedom is a problem. That’s why I’m here. A black female talk radio host in LA said that for every black man that goes with a white women, that’s one less black man for black women to get together with… she is right, of course - SHE WAS FIRED the next day. Now there’s a tolerant world for you hey. “One non-branching Human Race ONLY” religion. Ah, I think that might be the new phrase.

You’re the only one using that phrase in this thread. And the instant bias and prejudice isn’t against genetic freedom per se (you can mate with anyone you want, as numerous people in this thread have agreed), but all the white supremacist baggage associated with such a view. Many of the premises you’ve described in this thread are similar, if not identical, to ones you’d find on a white supremacist message board. Whether you happen to be a white supremacist personally or not is irrelevant; your message is largely indistinguishable from theirs, and referring to sizes of black penises and how white women (as well as your opponents on this thread) have been brainwashed isn’t helping you.

This one is easy… “white people” have been brainwashed by Christianity and Jesus for thousands of years. It’s not stretch to think that some white females can be influenced to tilt towards wanting black guys - especially since media is a far more powerful force over the human mind than the little tiny bible.

See? This paragraph has no scientific merit whatsoever, but it does contain negativity toward Christians (they are brainwashing people), white people (they are being brainwahsed), white women (they are REALLY being brainwashed) and black men (finding them attractive is somehow icky and/or unnatural). You’re tainting your own argument with hostility, which doesn’t encourage acceptance of your scientific claims.

They are, just like everybody who follows Christianity or Islam is simply making the “personal choice” to do so… Choice is an illusion friend - Didn’t you see Matrix?

Um, that was a MOVIE, friend. And if choice is an illusion, that it’s fair to conclude that you haven’t created the concept of “Genetic Freedom” as an act of philosophical creativity, but are simply regurgitating back some environmental influence.

Your not hip man… you don’t get it. It’s “real” don’t you know. Hip Hop is so down to earth and honest and passionate…

I think Folk Music (mostly played by whites) has a better claim on that description, so why aren’t white hippie singers getting all the chicks?

This is another unfortunate example of the poor packaging of your ideas. I need hardly point out that protecting white women from black men is a major theme among white supremacists.

Protecting? Let’s simply try total honesty.

So, you totally honestly believe that white women seeking nonwhite mates is… wrong? What’s your remedy? Do white women need to be denied access to movies and TV shows for their own protection? Should they be punished for selecting nonwhite mates?

As it stands, though, I find more than enough pseudoscientific hogwash in your position to reject it, personal feelings aside.

Yet, you didn’t know what the world phenotype meant…

In your post of April 19th, at 9:14 PM (i.e. three days ago) you quoted the definition I had cited without offering a correction. What’s happened now, though, is that you’ve found someone who defines “phenotype” more broadly than my source did, and I expect you’ll keep referring to this because you don’t really have a valid argument and it’s easier to nitpick my points than address them. I don’t recognize that I was in error (that is to say, I don’t recognize that Merriam-Webster’s definition of “phenotype” was in error), and even if I was in error on this small point (which I wasn’t), this would not constitute proof for anything you’ve stated in this thread.

Yet, you didn’t know what the world phenotype meant… I’m not trying to rub it in… well, maybe a little bit. It’s just that you composed all this not knowning what phenotype means.

I figure that’s the sixth time in your post that you’ve claimed my use of “phenotype” was incorrect. Repetition doesn’t consitute proof, either.

Hardly… Winters require major genetic changes so the northern humans can survive. Other environments require some changes as well. To suggest that no further mutations have occured is narrow minded. No genetic pressure is needed for mutation - it just happens. Wow, I’m amazed at how easily you dismiss human genetic branching over the past 150,000 years as “insignificant.”

Who’s claiming that no further mutations have occured? Not I. I am claiming, however, that homo sapiens is a successful species and radical evolutionary change has not proven necessary. Similarly, cockroaches have been largely unchanged for a whopping three hundred million years, because they fit well into the enviroment.

I’ll just restate my earlier definition of “insignificant”. If two animals of the same species can successfully breed (successful meaning having healthy, fertile offspring), then differences of colour/appearance between those two animals are insignificant. Humans from completely different parts of Earth can interbreed, even if one has dark skin and one has light skin, suggesting to me that skin colour is not a significant genetic factor. It’s an obvious genetic factor, mind you, but wehre evolution is concerned, the only traits that matter are the ones that might prevent you from reaching adulthood and reproducing. Everything else is minor.

Correct. Not yet… Although some people with the wrong blood types cannot mate with each other - I don’t know if this has ethnic trends or not.

I know in some cases a woman carrying a fetus with a different blood type can encounter difficulty. Typically, the mother has an RH-negative blood type while the father was RH-positive. If the fetus takes after the father, the mother’s own immune system may pose a threat to the fetus. These complications are rare, though, and they certainly don’t suggest that RH-positive people and RH-negative people have branched into different species.

I don’t recognize your justification for calling me ignorant

Phenotypes… I’m not trying to be mean. I’m just saying…

I think you’re trying to be smug, not mean, but you have no justification for either stance.

No, it has aggregate phenotypic significance. The world could be populated by clones, the concept of the branching human race would still be a noble cause of freedom.

You can repeat the “aggregate phenotypic” jargon all you want, and it won’t prove anything. And “noble” ? I thought this was a scientific discussion. In any case, if humans had evolved along different lines and reproduced by parthenogenesis or something, we’d arguably be a species of “clones”, and if that breeding pattern was altered, it would be a simple matter of natural selection, not some noble struggle for freedom. Were you under the mistaken impression that my goal was to replace the current multiethnic human race with clones? That would be silly.

But I know for a fact that any of your lily-white grandchildren will be able to successfully mate with any Nigerian, Japanese or Indian that they happen to have the hots for. This will casually undo all your efforts and put a sang-froid smile right on my face.

that you gain emotional pleasure from this thought proves that you follow the “One non-branching human race” religion.

No, I gain emotional pleasure from the knowledge that your irrational beliefs will come to naught. If it gives you emotional pleasure to ascribe my attitude to some conspiracy, be my guest.

[tomndebb]

Any debunkers were simply lying because it was convenient…

No. You are the one who is lying by pretending the data says more than it does. There have been a few studies that showed a statistical difference–that amounted to rather less than an eighth of an inch pn average. In addition, (despite the anecdote you claim to have heard from your sisters), there is the clear point that women (generalized) prefer a wide variety of sizes, so even if you could find an identifiable group with larger penes, you would not automatically attract more women. Then your “some tribes” nonsense falls on its face with the obvious point that blacks in the U.S. have such a broad mixture of African sources, combined with large infusions of white and American Indian ancestry, that finding some descendant of the appropriate “tribe” would be only possible by interviewing (and inspecting) huge numbers of black males–something the typical white woman does not do just to get a date.

As I noted, it is false on multiple levels and your hasty cry of “lie” (with, as usual, no evidence beyond a claimed anecdote from your sisters) is simply one more falsehood of your own.

Professional athletes have sex with hundreds of women a year… do the math.

OK, let’s do the math. Let’s pretend that all the professional sports teams are 100% black and that they all date white women, exclusively:
MLB 30 teams X 25 men = 750 men
NFL 42 teams X 40 men = 1680 men
NBA 30 teams X 15 men = 450 men
NHL 30 teams X 28 men = 840 men

Wow! A whopping 3720 guys! Heck, let’s multiply it by 100 to include all the minor league and rated college teams (still pretending that all those hockey players are black) and we come up with 3.720,000 black athletes. You then have to pretend that they are scoring only with white girls to make a dent in the numbers, considering that there are actually over 10 times that many blacks in the country.
Now switching to permanent relationships (because, despite your fears, Magic Johnson is not typical of most athletes, only representing a tiny number of guys at the top of the pyramid), to get to a figure of 6 1/4% of marriages being “mixed,” William H. Frey has chosen to consider Hispanic a racial category and has considered any Hispanic/non-Hispanic pairing as a mixed marriage. At the end of his analysis, nowhere do black/white couples exceed 8% of the 6 1/4% of “mixed” marriages, so the maximum number of black/white marriages is less than 8% of 6 1/4% (or 0.5%) of the U.S. population. Based on 280,000,000 people, that brings us to a maximum of 1,400,000 black/white pairings–well under the number we got with our imaginary black hockey leagues. (And this presumes that there are the same percentage of black/white marriages in North Dakota as in New York–a preposterous claim.) Since we know that not all athletes are black and that not all black athletes date/marry white women and that some of the less than 0.5% actually represents black women married to white guys, we see that “doing the numbers” makes your “black athlete” claim so much nonsense.

You throw out nonsense like penis sizes and Jewish “control” of the media so glibly (without ever providing substantive evidence that you got these numbers from a reliable source instead of from some hate web site) that your pretended figures simply cannot be treated with respect.

(I know, I know. I have been deluded by your favorite appeal to a movie-as-truth. You really ought to remember that it was just a movie.)

[Bryan_Ekers]

Excellent math analysis, tomndebb, but don’t forget that Wilt Chamberlain ruined the curve by nailing 20,000 women (i.e. 1.25 a day over the 44-year period from the beginning of his college days to the end of his life).

Or so he claimed.

[castaway]

@tomndebb

Sort of in a different, random, arbitrary way. . .

Different and random yes… but the word arbitrary deals with a choice that people make…

[castaway]

**

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, it’s true that there are fixed (i.e. not arbitrary) human phenotype characteristics, like having one head, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, ten toes, two lungs, one liver, one stomach etc. etc. etc., and these are only violated in the case of birth defects. Every human on Earth has this design as a basic template, and no amount of cross-breeding is likely to change it.**

Ethnic groups have highly probable aggregate phenotypes beyond the basic human morphology. That’s what Genetic branching is.

The problem with your position, as far as I can tell, is that you’re maintaining that “whiteness” is a similarly fixed characteristic
Actually, you all are the ones fixated upon whiteness. That is one of many excessively broad human groups.

and that it is worthwhile to segregate one’s children to in order to preserve it. The flaw is that you have no means to force your descendants to mate along racial lines, unless you want to create laws that are contrary to established freedoms.

the “district based community” discussion is for the future. First, the simple concept of discussing the branching human race must be fluidly discussed.
If your plan of Genetic Freedom was implemented, do you believe that through “branching”, your community would produce some alternate human species made up of some kind of pure white strain?

Again, your problem is that you are completed fixated upon “whiteness.” Get over it - it’s impossible for somebody with that mindset to think rationally.
Even after fifty generations of selective breeding (or even inbreeding, which I think is implied), your descendants will still be homo sapiens, capable of successfully breeding with other homo sapiens. What will you have accomplished?

The human race will freely branch, genetically. This is a fundamental human right. It’s not about accomplishing speciation - not required. Though, given enough time it will happen.
If you respect individual freedom and don’t want to force your descendants to comply, you’d have to postulate that people not yet born will voluntarily play along with your plan and mate exclusively with other whites.

Problem here, you are still fixated on whites, and thus not rational. If you cannot purge that bias a prejudice from your mind, you cannot freely think about genetic freedom. It’s hard, I know, given todays media and educational environment.

[castaway]

@zwaldd

But grouping by phenotype is arbitrary unless you’re only concerned with what people look like. I’m not saying it’s inherently bad, just that it doesn’t beget any improvements. In fact, it’s probably a wise move if you just want to eliminate spikes in your genetic spectrum.

It is arbitrary within your mind, and within your perception. To use an economic concept, you apply no value to any aggregate phenotypes.

This is a narrow minded view, as far as I’m concerned. I doubt we will ever agree so why do you keep talking?

[castaway]

Well, when they wrote it, it wasn’t a Christian Bible, it was a Jewish Bible. The notion that Jews have been dominant within their societies is also patently wrong, given a long and well-established history of pogroms, expulsions and even death camps directed against Jews all over Europe, i.e. the “white societies”.

They wrote the bible… bottom line. They are dominant today, they have been historically dominant. Historically they were dominant… then they were “purged” from a society. That has been a historic pattern. They are part of the “white race” and that’s that. So all history of “white people” over the past 2000 years is intertwined with Jewish history and people. They are “spliced” together even if it has been a love-hate relationship.
Well, if you want to select breeding partners based on skin colour, go right ahead,

Ok.
but you can’t prove a point with jargon, no matter how many terms you string together. “Aggregate phenotypic direction of genetic freedom” …?

Hey, I’m just speaking in words that are accurate. I know not all people will understand them. I’ll work on it.
Why not just admit you like white women and want to have white children?

Using the word “admit” here is rediculous and suggestive… shows your bias and prejudice, once again.
Why not just admit that you want to force other people, including your own descendants, to do the same? It’s pretty strongly implied.

That is nonsense, and proves that you are riddled with perception distortions…

[zwaldd]

@castaway

It is arbitrary within your mind, and within your perception.

And in the way I described.

[castaway]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway
Blue eyes are very pretty - things of that nature enrich life - hardly something I would characterize is of little significance or substance. Same could be said for colorful hair. But eye and hair color are just cosmetic things, sure.

Bryan: Well, the “enrich life” thing is clearly a personal preference and as such has little value in a scientific discussion.**

It has a place in a conversation of Genetic Freedom for the human race.
**Quote: Castaway:
Regarding variance within a family - the more “mixed” a family is, the more variance there will be, of these traits. If a Pure light pigmentation gened person mates with a pure dark pigmented gene person, their family and the following generations will have more variety of coloring… this might stabilize over time depending on the reproductive trends of the future.

Bryan: So? Is that bad, or something?**

I was just commenting upon your comment… no animosity of any kind.
In the page you cite, in the sentence before the one you quoted, the author notes that phenotype is being used in “its broadest definition.” I simply selected an established definition that was narrower than yours.

I use it the way I need to, to communicate Genetic Freedom. Phenotype is the only word available to indicate “aggregate phenotypes” whether those be visible or internal phenotypes.
**Quote: Castaway:
We’ve all seen the IQ charts compared with countries of the world. We can keep studying it sure… Today Azkenazi jews are at the top, followed by many oriental groups, then followed by various white groups etc… These are aggregate phenotypes which yield particular probability trends of intelligence. Sure, I know that is an incredibly politically incorrect statement that will draw hatred towards me, but it’s also science - and I’m all for continuing to study it to make sure no mistakes have been made, no problem.

Heck, if you want to point out that Africa has fewer doctors, engineers, scientists etc. per capita than other areas, be my guest. What it’ll draw from me (an Ashkenazi Jew, incidentally) isn’t hatred but a counterpoint that if African nations became more stable, less violent, offered better nutrition and education to their citizens and built more schools of higher learning, it’s quite likely that the “trends of intelligence” would change. I propose that such trends are more (or at least equally) environmental than genetic.**
Both Genetics and environment are relevant. Nice to hear you are an Ashkenazi Jew… Question: what percentage of Semitic to you believe you are vs. percentage German or whatever other?
**Quote: Castaway:
I don’t know… complicated question to answer. Probability trends are what they are, but isolated cases of any kind can certainly manifest, anywhere on the world. In fact, it is speculated that a change of a single molecule in the body of a “monkey” led to relative superintelligence of that monkey. This mutation then spread and those superintelligent monkeys branched from the stupid monkeys… Thus creating humans eventually.

Bryan: You claim to be conversant in genetics yet believe humans evolved from monkeys? I find that stunning and amusing.**

Apes, Primate like creatures OK… sloppy on my part… I have not studied all the nuances of evolution.
**Quote: Castaway:
That could happen again, tomorrow, and it could occur to any baby born… hell, perhaps it could happen to a bird or a dolphin. There is something to be said for having genetics that are “ready for the next step” in human evolution though.

Bryan: I seriously doubt intelligence was due to a single mutation. Rather, a series of mutations and natural selection reinforced each other over many thousands of years. How, incidentally, will a selectively bred white community ensure preparedness for the “next step” in evolution?**

You are fixated upon “white people” again… you have a major problem with that. Hopefully you can solve this obvious phobia.

I wish I knew where that article was… because yes, a single mutation may have lead to a more intelligent primate which was the branch that lead to modern humans. But I also completely agree with you that intelligence is more than just a single mutation - the single mutation was just a step towards further intelligence.
but all the white supremacist baggage associated with such a view. Many of the premises you’ve described in this thread are similar, if not identical, to ones you’d find on a white supremacist message board.

Which simply shows that “white supremacists” aren’t wrong about many specific things they say, but rather their overall goals are often highly flawed.
**Quote: Castaway:
This one is easy… “white people” have been brainwashed by Christianity and Jesus for thousands of years. It’s not stretch to think that some white females can be influenced to tilt towards wanting black guys - especially since media is a far more powerful force over the human mind than the little tiny bible.

Bryan: See? This paragraph has no scientific merit whatsoever, but it does contain negativity toward Christians (they are brainwashing people), white people (they are being brainwahsed), white women (they are REALLY being brainwashed) and black men (finding them attractive is somehow icky and/or unnatural).**

It has scientific proposals… things that need to be studied but simply are not because studies of that kind are “racist.” Why? Because we live in an intolerante society - a society intolerant of the branching human race. The whole “black people are icky” is just a perception distortion within your mind.
**Quote: Castaway:
They are, just like everybody who follows Christianity or Islam is simply making the “personal choice” to do so… Choice is an illusion friend - Didn’t you see Matrix?

Bryan: Um, that was a MOVIE, friend. And if choice is an illusion, that it’s fair to conclude that you haven’t created the concept of “Genetic Freedom” as an act of philosophical creativity, but are simply regurgitating back some environmental influence.**

Choice is a illusion with regards to things the media matrix brainwashes people with.
So, you totally honestly believe that white women seeking nonwhite mates is… wrong?

No, it’s occuring for all the reasons I’ve stated.

What’s your remedy?

The remedy is total honesty. Honesty that media influences peoples decisions and honesty of how black males are portrayed and how white females are portrayed etc…
Do white women need to be denied access to movies and TV shows for their own protection? Should they be punished for selecting nonwhite mates?

This is silliness… you would have made a good hitler or Stalin with thoughts like this.
I don’t recognize that Merriam-Webster’s definition of “phenotype” was in error), and even if I was in error on this small point (which I wasn’t), this would not constitute proof for anything you’ve stated in this thread.

You were in error of how you perceived my use of the word phenotype. Unlike me, you do not simply accept your errors and move on… that is a weakness.
Who’s claiming that no further mutations have occured? Not I. I am claiming, however, that homo sapiens is a successful species and radical evolutionary change has not proven necessary. Similarly, cockroaches have been largely unchanged for a whopping three hundred million years, because they fit well into the enviroment.

This is because the cockroaches are somehow protected from cosmic ray induced mutation… they are somewhat resistant to radioactive matter I think as well.
**You can repeat the “aggregate phenotypic” jargon all you want, and it won’t prove anything. **

The human race may freely branch… precisely what is it that you think I must prove? This is a fundamental freedom. Your stance is that anybody who says “I want to propogate these genetics over here” - you think that person is irrational, stupid, or something along those lines. You don’t respect them. If you wish to have that type of intolerance pasted upon your character, fine.
**No, I gain emotional pleasure from the knowledge that your irrational beliefs will come to naught. **

You will not be able to prevent Genetic Freedom from taking hold in the minds of the mainstream.

[castaway]

**

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
No. You are the one who is lying by pretending the data says more than it does. There have been a few studies that showed a statistical difference–that amounted to rather less than an eighth of an inch pn average. **

If the study was conducted at the level of “tribe” the differences would have been greater - my postulate.
**In addition, (despite the anecdote you claim to have heard from your sisters), there is the clear point that women (generalized) prefer a wide variety of sizes, so even if you could find an identifiable group with larger penes, you would not automatically attract more women. **

It’s one of many factors… not the ONLY factor. Girls can sometimes go through a phase of “looking for the biggest one” they can find for the thrill of it… I’ve always maintained that any guy can give a girl any size - buy one from the store, strap it on and have at it - won’t get her pregnant, won’t give her disease, and won’t ever go soft.
Then your “some tribes” nonsense falls on its face with the obvious point that blacks in the U.S. have such a broad mixture of African sources, combined with large infusions of white and American Indian ancestry, that finding some descendant of the appropriate “tribe” would be only possible by interviewing (and inspecting) huge numbers of black males–something the typical white woman does not do just to get a date.

You just proved my point. The study that was done regarding penis size was not at the level of tribe, but rather at the level of “African or mixed african american heritage.” - which is way, way too broad to do any kind of real unique aggregate phenotype analysis. there is no white guy in the world who has a penis as big as “long dong silver.” And there are a lot more where he came from. There are plenty of white guys with “large ones.” But I’m talking about probability trends here.
As I noted, it is false on multiple levels and your hasty cry of “lie” (with, as usual, no evidence beyond a claimed anecdote from your sisters) is simply one more falsehood of your own.

I used the word lie carelessly, it was an improper study of too broad a group. That could be seen as a “lie because it was convenient.”
**OK, let’s do the math. Let’s pretend that all the professional sports teams are 100% black and that they all date white women, exclusively:
MLB 30 teams X 25 men = 750 men
NFL 42 teams X 40 men = 1680 men
NBA 30 teams X 15 men = 450 men
NHL 30 teams X 28 men = 840 men

Wow! A whopping 3720 guys! Heck, let’s multiply it by 100 to include all the minor league and rated college teams (still pretending that all those hockey players are black) and we come up with 3.720,000 black athletes. You then have to pretend that they are scoring only with white girls to make a dent in the numbers, considering that there are actually over 10 times that many blacks in the country. **

The number may be around 2 million when including highschool. But, like I said, how blacks are portrayed in athletics and the music industry puts a positive prejudice upon them as compared to whites. “White men have no rhythm” yet another little thought in the back of white girls minds as they make their so-called “choices.”

**
Now switching to permanent relationships (because, despite your fears, Magic Johnson is not typical of most athletes, only representing a tiny number of guys at the top of the pyramid)**

For the record. you are the one that “fears” not me. You fear Genetic Freedom for the human race… you fear that Genetic Branching could become a mainstream concept and people would happily pursue it.
-clip- we see that “doing the numbers” makes your “black athlete” claim so much nonsense.

One of several factors I mentioned… somehow you think each concept can be isolated out - then “debunked.” You are absolutely rediculous. Your intellect is absurd and obviously agenda driven. Look up the word “and.” It’s not just one of these factors it’s all of them together making reality what it is. Dismissing any of these factors is NOT RATIONAL. Therefore, you are not rational.
**You throw out nonsense like penis sizes and Jewish “control” of the media so glibly (without ever providing substantive evidence that you got these numbers from a reliable source instead of from some hate web site) **

Nonsense is coming from your brain. Penis size is a real factor, Jews do own most of the media and therefore, likely control it. The statistics of black/white marriages came from the census - which, as I’ve said, hardly indicates how many white girls have dated black guys… that number is much, much higher. I’m sure a lot of black/white babies have been born out of wedlock as well.

[castaway]

@zwaldd

And in the way I described.

which is the way you perceive…

[zwaldd]

@castaway

which is the way you perceive…

Of course. I perceive things how they are.

[castaway]

**

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Your point doesn’t rest so much as fall over and drop dead. Teaching young children a simplified premise like “everyone should be treated equally” and “don’t judge people by their colour” doesn’t strike me as extreme, or at least not as extreme as the leftist boogeyman you seem to think is indoctrinating children with the message that everyone is exactly the same.**

There is complete and utter intolerance of genetic freedom for the branching human race. People are not rational or sane regarding this issue. The “One non-branching human race” ideology is indoctrinated into kids minds - you know this. If you simply deny it your motives are made crystal clear because I’m quite certain you’re not so stupid as to “not understand” the educational system, political, and media environment that exists today.
Such leftists do exist (heck, I’ve met a few right here), but their views are not as widespread as you claim, nor are children so dumb that they become unable to make their own romantic choices when they reach adulthood.

The bias and prejudice against Genetic Freedom and the branching human race is very real. If you do not help stop that bias and prejudice, then you are part of the problem.
I’m glad you approve in theory, but wasn’t one of the premises of your Genetically Free communities that newcomers could be rejected based on their phenotypes, i.e. how they looked?

How many times do I have to say that the “district based communities” is a conversation for the future… for a time when people are much more enlightened about the branching human race and don’t take it personally.
**Unfortunately, you’ve only vaguely defined the terms “genetic freedom” and “branching”, and without firm definitions, you can’t prove they’re being “disrespected”. **

Such brainpower you show. Genetics Branch. Any biologist knows what I just said. If you don’t, not my problem - sure ignorance is a problem, but that will be overcome with time.
**In any case, if genetic freedom means being able to mate as you choose, then such a practice is certainly not in jeopardy. **

Genetic Freedom for both individuals and groups of individuals - self defining.

If by “branching” you mean ensuring that all your descendants will make mating choices similar to yours (thus preserving a phenotype)

We teach them about Genetic Freedom - something we don’t do today - then they make their choices. If we don’t teach them about genetic freedom, but instead teach them only about the “evil white racist” white man coupled with correlations that “racism is paying attention to the differences between people” which is something you should not do - that’s hardly a fair and balanced educational environment - it is on the other hand blatant indoctrination - and you deny this… which reveals what kind of person you are.
Well, I never managed to attract Sean Young, but I got over it. How does not taking care of oneself become a genetic, rather than environmental, problem anyway?

Well, that’s a complicated topic beyond the scope of this discussion. If you want to read more look up SiaHi on the Genetics Religion page.
From a strictly genetic point of view, though, is such a pairing worse than white man/black woman? If so, how?

You ask stupid “lead in” questions… I think this is called “leading the witness” in a court of law. Which is why I don’t respond to dumbass questions like this.
** If not, then why mention black man/white woman at all?**

I’m quite certain you all brought up black/white before I did. Talking about it is not at all required during a discussion of Genetic Freedom.
Is there some conspiracy to “corrupt” white females away from their natural choice (white men, I assume)? What is the purpose of such programming?

The answer appears to be yes, and media would be at the core of that particular conspiracy and even Jews. Israel Shamir, a Jew in Israel, is honest about these things and the logic is simply - “Since Jews have been persecuted throughout history, naturally they want to increase immigration so they don’t stick out so much within white societies.” Increasing interracial relations goes along with this logic.
One film proves absolutely nothing, of course, except that villians are not universally white, as implied by your statement.

I’m not remotely concerned that when the study of media and ethnic placement and characterizations is done - it will show the obvious trends that I’ve mentioned. You should fear this complete study being done, because then you’d have nothing to stand upon.
**Well, encouraging tolerance (it turns out) is actually prefereable to encouraging segregation. **

Then encourage tolerance of the branching human race. If you are creative enough… if you are narrow minded and can only handle the single branch human race, fine - don’t bring the rest of us down that narrow pathway with you.
-clip-

You don’t quite comprehend my most significant victory here… my only goal was to get people to discuss Genetic Freedom… I don’t expect the few people who have responded here to support it, I expect them to go against it. It is discussed, and discussed and there is no specific end in sight. There are many people who are not as closed minded as you guys are, and they will understand that the human race may freely branch, genetically. Then, when conversations of this kind happen, you’ll hve to deal with more than just one person… eventually the tide will tilt and you’ll just jump aboard the train of tolerance and freedom.

[castaway]

@zwaldd

Of course. I perceive things how they are…

…How they are to you…
Two can play the game of small, meaningless, one liners.

[tomndebb]

Genetics Branch. Any biologist knows what I just said. If you don’t, not my problem - sure ignorance is a problem, but that will be overcome with time.

Once more you display ignorance behind a mask of arrogance.

The bold claim “genetics branch” is not accurate. Rather, the reality is that genetic populations tend to branch only when there is pressure and isolation imposed on the groups that will branch. If “genetics branch” was an absolute statement, then we would see far more diversity in the human population than we do.

Instead, even with the (limited, in your opinion) amount of genetic material we have studied, we can still see that there is more variation among the lowland gorillas (aged 338,000 to - 436.000 years) than there is among far greater number of individual humans (aged 400,000 years). In other words humans, by the simple act of continuing to move around (and breeding with anyone they meet), have reduced the “branching” that you have claimed as an absolute law of nature.

It is true that mutations continue to occur at a (speculated) regular rate, but there is no scientific imperative for branching–only your personal desire, unsupporeted by facts. The reality seems to be that branching never occurs except when there are external pressures or physical separations (all of which humans have overcome with ease). (If you do not like the cockroach example (with mystical appeals to radiation resistance), consider the impala. Early evolutionary theorists speculated that it might have been an “unsuccessful” species bsed on the realtively few subspecies it has generated. Closer analysis has demonstrated that it is actually more “successful” than many of its cousins with greater speciation. The impala has found a physical form ideally suited to its environment and has continued to propagate without branching into separate species while its cousins have bred a wide variety of species “branches,” most of whch have fallen prey to extinction. (And in the case of the impala, we see not just that branching is not a universal, but that it is not even necessarily desirable.)

[Lilairen]

@tomndebb

The penis nonsense has been debunked on several levels, years ago.

The fetishisation of penis size baffles me most mightily, anyway.

I mean, are there really guys out there who think that “Stop hammering on my cervix, you moron!” is a cry of ecstasy?