very simple proof that interbreeding INCREASES genetic diversity [Archive]

Stick to the Facts

11-11-2006, 11:13 PM

I keep seeing the claim that interbreeding creates LESS genetic diversity and I am going to put it to rest for good.

Mixing genes is not like mixing paint. If you start with a can of red paint and blue paint, you get two cans of purple paint. In that case you go from 2 kinds of paint to one, so WN types conclude that this must also be true for genetics.

It isn't.

Example:

Take two different people of different 'races'. Now examine two different genes. Each person has the same allele for the trait, and that allele is common within that persons 'race' but is uncommon for the other.

An example would be the gene for cystic fibrosis in caucasians and the gene for sickle cell anemia in those of recent African derivation. Or for blue eyes in caucasians. Note that the example works whether the genes are recessive or dominant, although the effects of the traits will come out differently.

Person 1-

gene 1 - A,A

gene 2 - B,B

Person 2 -

gene 1 - E, E

gene 2 - F, F

If each of these people interbreeds with someone with the same two alleles for those two genes, all of their offspring will have the same as the parents.

If they interbreed, they will have:

gene 1 - A, E

gene 2 - B, F

Now go to the second generation.

If you again have someone with EE and FF interbreed with another person of that race with EE and FF, you'll get another EE FF.

But if the two hybrids interbreed, you'll get a variety - you'll get:

gene 1 - AA, AE, or EE

gene 2 - BB, BF, or FF

That's nine different outcomes.

If an AA/BB interbreeds with a hybrid, you get:

gene 1: AA or AE

gene 2 - BB or BF.

That's four different outcomes.

So as you can see, the more dissimilar the genetic matchup, the MORE diverse the genetics of the offspring.

Any questions?

Osmium14

11-11-2006, 11:19 PM

That is simply not true. So interbreeding all of the breeds of dogs and races of humans together would create MORE diversity? You're really stretching that one there.

So if by some tragic circumstance, there will be no more Golden Retrievers, no more poodles, no more Maltese, no German Shepherd, no Pitbull, but they all would be mixed together into one uniform mutt....

Do you understand how the Chinese became so homogenous? They live on the flatlands, a large block of land, with no natural barriers like mountains or rivers, they all turned out to look the same. Black hair, brown eyes, yellow skin.... While the Europeans, they've been separated by much terrain. Anyways, to cut it short....

I hope you realize that the MOST DIVERSE population TODAY are the Africans in Africa. YES, the most genetically diverse population is found in Africa. What does this mean? Nothing at all. Just like this thread, it means nothing.

Little-Explored African Genetic Diversity May Hold Key To Human Origins, Medical Questions

Anaheim, Calif. -- Genetic diversity in Africa is extremely high, even between closely related or located groups and much higher than diversity in other human populations. This diversity suggests a recent African origin for modern humans and a raft of potentially fertile medical research, according to a Penn State evolutionary biologist.

Genetic Diversity in Africa: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990125073157.htm

Having unique genetic traits selected for through the generations is a much better fitness indicator than genetic diversity.

guy

11-11-2006, 11:25 PM

Any questions?
Only one: If it was physiologically possible, then would breeding with chimpanzees increase or reduce our genetic diversity?

Stick to the Facts

11-11-2006, 11:30 PM

That is simply not true. So interbreeding all of the breeds of dogs and races of humans together would create MORE diversity? You're really stretching that one there.

It's true.

So if by some tragic circumstance, there will be no more Golden Retrievers, no more poodles, no more Maltese, no German Shepherd, no Pitbull, but they all would be mixed together into one uniform mutt....

There would not be one type of mutt. There would be mutts with a wide variety of different genetic makeups, far more than there are breeds of dogs.

Genes don't mix like paint - it is more accurate they combine like atoms.

If you have an atom of carbon (atomic weight 12) and four atoms of hydrogen (each with atomic weight one) you don't get 5 atoms, each with an atomic weight of 3.2.

If you take a bunch of carbon, and a bunch of hydrogen and combine them, you get a rich variety of hydrocarbons of many different compositions.

Do you understand how the Chinese became so homogenous? They live on the flatlands, a large block of land, with no natural barriers like mountains or rivers, they all turned out to look the same. Black hair, brown eyes, yellow skin.... While the Europeans, they've been separated by much terrain. Anyways, to cut it short....

This of course is nonsense. All Chinese might look the same to YOU but that doesn't mean that they look the same to each other. If you aren't accustomed to asian people you just focus on those characteristics that appear uniform.

Plus, you are not suggesting anything to disprove my example. Explain why the genes will be less diverse rather than more, if you will.

I hope you realize that the MOST DIVERSE population TODAY are the Africans in Africa. YES, the most genetically diverse population is found in Africa. What does this mean? Nothing at all. Just like this thread, it means nothing.

And even if that is true please explain how that refutes my very simple example above.

Having unique genetic traits selected for through the generations is a much better fitness indicator than genetic diversity.

So now you are no longer saying that interbreeding leads to less diversity, but rather that it is less favorable? So do you now agree that it leads to more genetic diversity, whether or not it is a benefit or a liability?

Stick to the Facts

11-11-2006, 11:35 PM

Only one: If it was physiologically possible, then would breeding with chimpanzees increase or reduce our genetic diversity?

It isn't possible but there isn't any question that it would increase diversity.

Now you're going to say "see, that proves hybrid vigor is BAD because the resulting offspring would be less intelligent than humans!"

That would be incorrect.

Hybrid vigor doesn't say that the result will be genetic superior to BOTH, only that it will minimize the aggregation of adverse recessive genes for genetic diseases.

If a genius IQ black person interbreeds with a white person with an IQ of 80, there is little chance that the resulting offspring will be smarter than the genius-IQ black person. But there will be less chance of genetic disease, and if the white person's lack of intelligence was partially due to a genetic disease, that factor would be eliminated. The IQ and other characteristics would tend to be greater than the average of each parent.

Therefore, if a caucasian with an IQ of 120 interbreeds with an asian person with an IQ of 120, there is a greater probaility that the resulting offspring will have an IQ above 120.

Osmium14

11-11-2006, 11:43 PM

Sherlock, Africa has the most genetic diversity. It does not mean jackshit. Genetic Diversity is just a sham. Genetic uniqueness is the real indicator of fitness. This thread is bogus.

Stick to Facts, you can go ahead and race-mix with a negress or mestiza if you want, I don't care. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk. It's not my genes.

By the way, I updated my post up there to include an excerpt of the article.

Stick to the Facts

11-11-2006, 11:44 PM

It increases diversity between individuals of the meta-population, but decreases diversity between groups.

I think you are mistaking "diversity" for "genetic similarity". They are not the same.

If people interbreed, there is no question that the offspring will be less genetically dissimilar to one of their parents than that parent would be to a person of the other race.

But that's not what "diversity" is. Diversity is "variety". There is absolutely no question that there is greater "variety" between people of mixed race, where race A is one of the races, than people of race A are from each other. Or between people of two different races.

guy

11-11-2006, 11:47 PM

It isn't possible but there isn't any question that it would increase diversity.
Correct.

Now you're going to say "see, that proves hybrid vigor is BAD because the resulting offspring would be less intelligent than humans!"

That would be incorrect.
Your prediction of my reply would be incorrect too.

Hybrid vigor doesn't say that the result will be genetic superior to BOTH, only that it will minimize the aggregation of adverse recessive genes for genetic diseases.
That is true for simple cases of one gene encoding one protein with one specific function. Stupidity is a result of several genes and their interaction, though, so if you consider it (stupidity, that is) to be a disease, then that would also be incorrect. ;)

If a genius IQ black person interbreeds with a white person with an IQ of 80, there is little chance that the resulting offspring will be smarter than the genius-IQ black person.
Did you ever hear of the term "regression to the mean"?

But there will be less chance of genetic disease, and if the white person's lack of intelligence was partially due to a genetic disease, that factor would be eliminated.
Only if it was recessive, and it could still be passed down even if it was recessive.

The IQ and other characteristics would tend to be greater than the average of each parent.
Not necessarily, especially if the black guy's IQ is so much higher than the mean for black people.

Therefore, if a caucasian with an IQ of 120 interbreeds with an asian person with an IQ of 120, there is a greater probaility that the resulting offspring will have an IQ above 120.
Greater than what?

Stick to the Facts

11-11-2006, 11:50 PM

Sherlock, Africa has the most genetic diversity. It does not mean jackshit. Genetic Diversity is just a sham. Genetic uniqueness is the real indicator of fitness. This thread is bogus.

So again, you are no longer saying that interbreeding does not create more diversity - that was your original argument. You are now saying it creates more diversity, but that genetic diversity is inferior to 'genetic uniqueness'.

Please explain by example how genetic diversity is a "sham". It would be helpful if you used a simple model involving genes, like I did.

Stick to Facts, you can go ahead and race-mix with a negress or mestiza if you want, I don't care. If you talk the talk, then walk the walk. It's not my genes.

Again, looks like you've backed off of your assertion that interbreeding increases diversity.

By the way, I updated my post up there to include an excerpt of the article.

Doesn't matter, you still haven't explained the relevance of it.

Osmium14

11-11-2006, 11:56 PM

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 12:08 AM

Correct.

Your prediction of my reply would be incorrect too.

That is true for simple cases of one gene encoding one protein with one specific function. Stupidity is a result of several genes and their interaction, though, so if you consider it (stupidity, that is) to be a disease, then that would also be incorrect. ;)

Stupidity isn't a 'disease' but it can be diminished by genetic disorders, some of which have no impact on physical appearance.

Did you ever hear of the term "regression to the mean"?

Yes and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, but it does not mean that when two things combine the result will tend to be the average of the two. That is a fallacy. Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Only if it was recessive, and it could still be passed down even if it was recessive.

It could be passed on but it won't be manifested.

Not necessarily, especially if the black guy's IQ is so much higher than the mean for black people.

This doesn't make sense to me, what's the reasoning?

Greater than what?

I had said:

"Therefore, if a caucasian with an IQ of 120 interbreeds with an asian person with an IQ of 120, there is a greater probaility that the resulting offspring will have an IQ above 120."

I'm not sure what you mean by 'greater than what?' The offspring of a white and asian person, each with IQ of 120, will tend to be somewhat higher on average than that of the parents. Whereas the offspring of 2 white people each with IQ of 120 will tend to have children with an average IQ of 120.

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 12:27 AM

So the Africans are more genetically diverse than the Europeans or Asians. Does this mean Africans should outperform non-Africans in intelligence tests, creativity, work ethic? No. It does not mean anything. Just like the point of this thread is NOTHING.

That is illogical. You are ignoring a host of other factors. What you're saying is like this argument:

Me: A car that has just had a tune up generally drives better than a car that hasn't had a tuneup.

You: My 1975 rusted-out Dodge Dart just had a tubeup, are you saying that it drives better than a Mercedes that hasn't?

Same as your example - you are ignoring many many factors - not to mention that your example is based on faulty presumptions.

And regression to the mean would be a result of too much interracial mating. This would lead to LESS diversity, not more. The interracial breeding to a point where both founder populations are on the edge of extinction would be an irony.

This isn't what regression to the mean is at all, although you aren't the first one to misuse it like this.

Saying that 'combining two things gives the average' is a fallacy. It MIGHT give the average, but might not. Something can also be greater than the sum of the parts.

Also you are assuming that the average must be worse than either extreme. That is also a fallacy.

For example, if you have two options that are extremes, one that is in the middle - a compromise, if you will - can be better than either extreme. Not ALWAYS, but sometimes.

For example: is the best temperature 30 degrees F, 120 degrees F, or something in between?

The lost of unique traits for "genetic diversity" would mean extinction of a breed/race. Your version of diversity is only for idiots and non-Whites.

If by "extinct" you mean "transform into something different" then I guess you're right. If one animal evolves into one that is smarter and stronger, such that none of the original species remain, did it become "extinct"? And how is evolving worse than staying the same, exactly?

The diversity of unique genes and alleles would matter the most, not the overall diversity of the whole DNA strand. Go to my thread about why the White race is superior: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15945

This last bit doesn't make any sense - please clarify with a concrete example.

guy

11-12-2006, 12:31 AM

Stupidity isn't a 'disease' but it can be diminished by genetic disorders, some of which have no impact on physical appearance.
Yes, but I assumed we were talking about "regular" folk. How many people with down syndrome marry healthy people anyway?

Yes and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, but it does not mean that when two things combine the result will tend to be the average of the two. That is a fallacy. Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
And sometimes it is less.

It could be passed on but it won't be manifested.
If it were a dominant mutation it would be, but this is all irrelevant and basically a waste of time anyway. I agree with Osmium that the bottom line of your argument is not compelling. I probably should have stopped after my chimpanzee point.

This doesn't make sense to me, what's the reasoning?
Your IQ is not determined only by your genes. The random development of your brain and environmental factors are also important, and thus if black people had an average IQ of say 80 (just play along) then a black genius with an IQ of 140 would probably have dumber kids than a white genius with the same IQ (and the same wife), because non-genetic factors are more likely to have played a role in the black guy's 140 IQ. Statistically speaking, anyway.

I had said:

"Therefore, if a caucasian with an IQ of 120 interbreeds with an asian person with an IQ of 120, there is a greater probaility that the resulting offspring will have an IQ above 120."

I'm not sure what you mean by 'greater than what?' The offspring of a white and asian person, each with IQ of 120, will tend to be somewhat higher on average than that of the parents. Whereas the offspring of 2 white people each with IQ of 120 will tend to have children with an average IQ of 120.
I think the difference between the two offspring would be small, plus you didn't take into account other factors like creativity, which might be higher in whites than it is in Asians.

Now, I must leave you. Shalom chaver.

Osmium14

11-12-2006, 12:34 AM

"Genetic diversity" has not given the negroes any improvement except in the ability to act like monkeys. If you're so into diversity, why don't you go live in Africa yourself? So you can be close to the genetic diversity.

If that is your example of diversity, then you can have it. I for one shall not advocate the destruction of the many unique races of the world, just so you can have your "one race," "brown skin, black hair, brown eyes," and homogenous mutts.

One example would be this gene, http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15945, the ASPM and MCPN1 genes, that are more prevalent in Europeans.

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 12:44 AM

Yes, but I assumed we were talking about "regular" folk. How many people with down syndrome marry healthy people anyway?

As I said, there are many genetic disorders that aren't readily apparent, physically or otherwise. Some of them have only minor effects but can still dimish IQ, for example. People can have them and never even know it, although they could have an impact on their intelligence (among other things.)

And sometimes it is less.

Indeed, sometimes it is less. Inbreeding depression is an excellent example of this.

That doesn't mean that one cannot predict whether the whole will be greater than, less than, or equal to the sum of its parts.

Hybrid vigor and inbreeding depression are well-established phenomena.

If it were a dominant mutation it would be, but this is all irrelevant and basically a waste of time anyway. I agree with Osmium that the bottom line of your argument is not compelling. I probably should have stopped after my chimpanzee point.

Do you still maintain that interbreeding does not increase diversity? I think it would be more effective and convincing if you explained why, rather than just state a conclusion.

If my argument isn't compelling, please explain how by pointing out some flaw or making some other argument. Just saying 'I'm not convinced' means nothing - you might not have WANTED to be convinced, or refused to be convinced.

Your IQ is not determined only by your genes. The random development of your brain and environmental factors are also important,

That's right - and that's why I carefully use terms like "tend to".

and thus if black people had an average IQ of say 80 (just play along) then a black genius with an IQ of 140 would probably have dumber kids than a white genius with the same IQ (and the same wife), because non-genetic factors are more likely to have played a role in the black guy's 140 IQ. Statistically speaking, anyway.

Your argument is circular because you are beginning with the assumption that part of the black genius' IQ was more likely to have been the result of environment - you are starting with the assumption that, based on genes alone and all other things being equal, the white person is 'genetically' smarter.

I think the difference between the two offspring would be small, plus you didn't take into account other factors like creativity, which might be higher in whites than it is in Asians.

LOL another assumption - and again I've carefully used terms like 'tend to'.

Now, I must leave you. Shalom chaver.

I'm not Jewish, but shalom, whatever.

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 12:48 AM

"Genetic diversity" has not given the negroes any improvement except in the ability to act like monkeys. If you're so into diversity, why don't you go live in Africa yourself? So you can be close to the genetic diversity.

Even assuming your characterization of them 'acting like monkeys' is accurate - how can you be so sure that they wouldn't be worse off if they were genetically less diverse?

If that is your example of diversity, then you can have it. I for one shall not advocate the destruction of the many unique races of the world, just so you can have your "one race," "brown skin, black hair, brown eyes," and homogenous mutts.

That's fine with me, but just remember that if you're tempted to argue that interbreeding LOWERS genetic diversity again.

One example would be this gene, http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15945, the ASPM and MCPN1 genes, that are more prevalent in Europeans.

And that is relevant because......

guy

11-12-2006, 12:56 AM

Do you still maintain that interbreeding does not increase diversity?
Just because I am leaving, it doesn't mean that I am giving you a green light to put words in my mouth. I never maintained that. In fact, I agreed with your point. All I am saying is that your point is weak because the price you pay for obtaining that magical diversity is too high. And yes, I made some assumptions in my post, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. Are you assuming that my assumptions were wrong? Chaver means friend, BTW.

Osmium14

11-12-2006, 12:59 AM

That's fine with me, but just remember that if you're tempted to argue that interbreeding LOWERS genetic diversity again.

Natural selection plays a bigger role in shaping genetic diversity than the act of "interbreeding." If everyone interbred with each other on a random basis, meaning there was no selection, then no genes would be selected out of the gene pool. Interracial breeding becomes a detriment if we're trying to cause speciation. It wouldn't be "survival of the fittest" but it'd be suvival of all.

The European race became what it is today by inbreeding with cousins and breeding within the European race. So did the Asians, or Africans, etc. If everyone randomly chose a partner from a different race, there wouldn't be ANY RACES LEFT. Only a mutt race would exist.

And I also dispute the fact that genetic diversity actually causes ANY BENEFITS at all. It probably means little to nothing when compared to evolutionary pressures such as genetic drift, founder effect, gene flow, etc. The fact is, when we choice our mate, we are exercising natural selection right there. We are changing human evolution. And genetic diversity as a factor plays zero role in selecting a mate. i don't go, "Oh, look at that woman over there, she's really genetically diverse, I want to mate with her."

As a thread, you still fail to prove that "genetic diversity" is even worthwhile when going against natural selection. The latter should always dominate because it is the way of nature.

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 01:01 AM

Just because I am leaving, it doesn't mean that I am giving you a green light to put words in my mouth. I never maintained that. In fact, I agreed with your point. All I am saying is that your point is weak because the price you pay for obtaining that magical diversity is too high. And yes, I made some assumptions in my post, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. Are you assuming that my assumptions were wrong? Chaver means friend, BTW.

What about whites intermarrying with Asians? Aren't Asians supposed to be smarter?

And the whole bit about asians being less creative is completely unfounded. Asian cultures traditionally have a greater appreciation for art and literature than Western cultures.

And while some claim that the Japanese merely take our technology and make it smaller - completely untrue as it happens, they do a lot of original research in japan - but even if it were true, are they saying that it doesn't take creativity to figure out how to make a CD player that is barely larger than a CD?

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 01:14 AM

Natural selection plays a bigger role in shaping genetic diversity than the act of "interbreeding."

The diversity caused by each can't be compared because they are caused by completely different phenomea. I also don't see where you conclude that natural selection increases diversity.

If everyone interbred with each other on a random basis, meaning there was no selection, then no genes would be selected out of the gene pool. Interracial breeding becomes a detriment if we're trying to cause speciation. It wouldn't be "survival of the fittest" but it'd be suvival of all.

Where did I ever suggest that people would be interbreeding at random? They would still select mates based on other criteria such as intelligence, appearance, etc. Interbreeding certainly does not mean that one ceases to be selective.

Genes that provide even a small advantage are rapidly promulgated throughout the species. There is no reason to believe that increasing diversity would hinder evolution - quite the opposite. It would speed it along because it increases the likelihood that certain gene combinations can come together that might have an amplifying effect - where some of the necessary genes are more common in different races.

If people just interbred within a single race those combinations would occur far less commonly.

The European race became what it is today by inbreeding with cousins and breeding within the European race. So did the Asians, or Africans, etc. If everyone randomly chose a partner from a different race, there wouldn't be ANY RACES LEFT. Only a mutt race would exist.

My original post explained that genes mix like atoms, not like paint. You are simply restating the proposition that I sought to disprove, without providing any proof of your own.

There might not be any races left in the sense that you wouldn't be able to point to a person and say "that person is totally asian". But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be more diverse - they would be.

And I also dispute the fact that genetic diversity actually causes ANY BENEFITS at all. It probably means little to nothing when compared to evolutionary pressures such as genetic drift, founder effect, gene flow, etc. The fact is, when we choice our mate, we are exercising natural selection right there. We are changing human evolution. And genetic diversity as a factor plays zero role in selecting a mate. i don't go, "Oh, look at that woman over there, she's really genetically diverse, I want to mate with her."

well then I guess that you don't like Charles Darwin then. he said that it isn't the strongest species that survives, but the one most adaptable to change. The more genetic variety there is the more likely it is that a species will survive some catastrophe.

There's the classic example of some species of moth in the UK. Most had white wings. During industrialization buildings became blackened, making the moths stand out - easy pickings for birds.

Some few of those moths had black/dark gray wings. Over time the moth population became increasingly more black-winged as they had a better chance of survival. Eventually, black moths were more common.

What would have happened if they had all been white?

Ixtab

11-12-2006, 01:14 AM

Your argument is circular because you are beginning with the assumption that part of the black genius' IQ was more likely to have been the result of environment - you are starting with the assumption that, based on genes alone and all other things being equal, the white person is 'genetically' smarter.Familial regression to mediocrity is actually a good piece of evidence of genetic causes, because it means IQ behaves like all other known polygenic traits - like height, for example. Children of all races do tend to regress to the 'average' for their race when their parents are exceptionally stupid or exceptionally intelligent.

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 01:22 AM

Familial regression to mediocrity is actually a good piece of evidence of genetic causes, because it means IQ behaves like all other known polygenic traits - like height, for example. Children of all races do tend to regress to the 'average' for their race when their parents are exceptionally stupid or exceptionally intelligent.

Yet again, you are falling into the same trap. You are beginning with the premise that the black genius is genetically less intelligent than the white genius. If you are suggesting that the black person can 'genetically' have an IQ of 140 (whatever that means), yet his offspring will tend to 'regress to the mean' for that race, that is illogical. We are talking about an individual that we have defined as having an IQ of 140 based on genes. Your example presupposes that it is more likely for a black person of 140 IQ to have had environment play a larger role than a 140 IQ white person.

Even assuming that is true, it is irrelevant - again, because we start from square one defining the parameters such that each person has equivalent IQ potential.

Surely you aren't suggesting that people's genes aren't programmed with some sort of genetic telepathy that reports back the genetic composition of the average genetic composition of that race, are you? Or that such things are somehow imprinted or hard wired into the genetic code?

Osmium14

11-12-2006, 01:25 AM

There might not be any races left in the sense that you wouldn't be able to point to a person and say "that person is totally asian". But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be more diverse - they would be.

This is the problem, a generic mutt human would be the most genetically diverse, however, it would still not be preferable to many and many races of humans. You're saying that if we mix every breed of dog with each other, the end result would be lots of mutts with great genetic diversity. However, you would lose the unique breeds of dogs that should be preserved.

THAT IS WHERE YOU'RE WRONG. So the world would be more diverse, if everyone had African DNA, since Blacks have the most diverse DNA. I do not believe that more diversity is necessarily better or worse. I believe in the propagation of all races, all peoples, not the combination into one mestizo race.

You could say that the Latinos/Hispanics are the most diverse people because they are made from White, Asian (Amerindian), and Black blood. Blacks were slaves brought over, Whites were Spaniards and Portuguese, and Asians were the Amerindians or "Native Americans." However, it is not the case, the most diverse people are still Blacks in Africa. So how can you say that interracial breeding will produce the MOST DIVERSE genes? You are WRONG AGAIN.

Many people forget that the Amerindians are of Mongoloid stock, from Asia. They had slanted eyes, brown skin, and no facial hair. The conquistadors only called them "red" because of their habit of painting their face with red clay.

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 01:32 AM

This is the problem, a generic mutt human would be the most genetically diverse, however, it would still not be preferable to many and many races of humans. You're saying that if we mix every breed of dog with each other, the end result would be lots of mutts with great genetic diversity. However, you would lose the unique breeds of dogs that should be preserved.

THAT IS WHERE YOU'RE WRONG. So the world would be more diverse, if everyone had African DNA, since Blacks have the most diverse DNA. I do not believe that more diversity is necessarily better or worse. I believe in the propagation of all races, all peoples, not the combination into one mestizo race.

You could say that the Latinos/Hispanics are the most diverse people because they are made from White, Asian (Amerindian), and Black blood. Blacks were slaves brought over, Whites were Spaniards and Portuguese, and Asians were the Amerindians or "Native Americans." However, it is not the case, the most diverse people are still Blacks in Africa. So how can you say that interracial breeding will produce the MOST DIVERSE genes? You are WRONG AGAIN.

Many people forget that the Amerindians are of Mongoloid stock, from Asia. They had slanted eyes, brown skin, and no facial hair. The conquistadors only called them "red" because of their habit of painting their face with red clay.

The only purpose of this thread was to tackle one issue - that breeding between 'races' INCREASES genetic diversity. If you agree with that, then there's nothing left to argue about.

If you want to discuss a different topic, start another thread and I'll be happy to contribute.

I also ask you to consider pointing out the folly of others when they claim that interbreeding LOWERS genetic diversity.

Osmium14

11-12-2006, 01:39 AM

I also ask you to consider pointing out the folly of others when they claim that interbreeding LOWERS genetic diversity.

Well, everytime you interracial breed, you are removing a copy of your race's genes from the genepool. So every interracial mating has to be taken into account using the current populations of the new mixed-race people and the pure race people. So you have to calculate whether doing this will remove diversity from the gene pool. In the case of the Amerindians, they as a people are almost extinct, then NOT interbreeding would help protect diversity.

The same for breeds of dogs, if a breed is about to go extinct, you have to treat it as an endangered species. We have to help bring their population up to normal size by inbreeding, NOT interbreeding. The federal laws in the USA protects species and subspecies (breeds/races). So I think the same should be applied to humans.

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 01:48 AM

Well, everytime you interracial breed, you are removing a copy of your race's genes from the genepool.

Huh? Strange, I thought when a person bred they *passed on* their genes.

So every interracial mating has to be taken into account using the current populations of the new mixed-race people and the pure race people. So you have to calculate whether doing this will remove diversity from the gene pool.

No, I established in my OP that whether two mixed race people interbred, or one mixed and one 'pure' interbred, that genetic diversity would be increased compared to if two people of the same race bred together. Care to explain your reasoning?

In the case of the Amerindians, they as a people are almost extinct, then NOT interbreeding would help protect diversity.

I don't think so. Can you explain exactly how that would happen? Remember that genes are like atoms, not paint.

The same for breeds of dogs, if a breed is about to go extinct, you have to treat it as an endangered species. We have to help bring their population up to normal size by inbreeding, NOT interbreeding. The federal laws in the USA protects species and subspecies (breeds/races). So I think the same should be applied to humans.

Again, that doesn't mean that you are increasing diversity. Remember what the purpose of the thread is, if you want to discuss something else that's fine, let's just try to make it clear that these other issues don't refute the fact that genetic diversity is increased when different 'races' interbreed, despite what is often inaccurately claimed by WN types.

Ixtab

11-12-2006, 01:48 AM

You are beginning with the premise that the black genius is genetically less intelligent than the white genius.How so?

If you are suggesting that the black person can 'genetically' have an IQ of 140 (whatever that means), yet his offspring will tend to 'regress to the mean' for that race, that is illogical.And yet regression to the mean in children of parents with extreme phenotypic traits, including intelligence, is a typical finding.

"Genetic theory predicts the precise magnitude of the regression effect. Culture-only theory makes no systematic or quantitative predictions. Black children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the Black IQ average of 85, while White children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the White IQ average of 100. Regression to a lower average IQ helps to explain the fact that Black children born to high IQ, wealthy, Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents."
http://www.vdare.com/misc/051207_rushton_fallacy.htm

Stick to the Facts

11-12-2006, 02:05 AM

How so?

You had said:

"and thus if black people had an average IQ of say 80 (just play along) then a black genius with an IQ of 140 would probably have dumber kids than a white genius with the same IQ (and the same wife), because non-genetic factors are more likely to have played a role in the black guy's 140 IQ. Statistically speaking, anyway."

To which I replied:

"You are beginning with the premise that the black genius is genetically less intelligent than the white genius."

And yet regression to the mean in children of parents with extreme phenotypic traits, including intelligence, is a typical finding.

The basis of this is that, the further a sample is from the mean of a population, the more likely it is that the cause of the discrepancy is random factors. That applies where we don't know the basis of the higher value - in this case IQ. Since we don't know what caused it, we conclude that it is more likely that part of it is due to external random factors.

In our hypo here, however, we DO know what causes the higher IQ because we define the parameters such that we know.

Yet again, even if true, this deals with the tendency of groups of people and not individuals. You are saying that, because the black person's 140 IQ is further than the mean black person IQ than the same case for a white person, that this suggests that it was more likely that there were environmental factors involved.

If you start with the premise that both are genetically equivalent IQ wise, and both have a 140 IQ, then it makes no difference what the genetic makeup of other people of their 'race' is because genes between different people don't 'talk' to each other.

If what I'm saying still isn't clear do a google on 'regression to the mean'.

"Genetic theory predicts the precise magnitude of the regression effect. Culture-only theory makes no systematic or quantitative predictions. Black children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the Black IQ average of 85, while White children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the White IQ average of 100. Regression to a lower average IQ helps to explain the fact that Black children born to high IQ, wealthy, Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents."
http://www.vdare.com/misc/051207_rushton_fallacy.htm

Yet again, the cause of this is that we don't know in a random case what the cause of the higher IQ is. In any given group of people with an IQ of 140, some have a genetic potential of 120 but have 140 due to environment etc, some have a genetic predisposition for 140, abd a few are disposed to a 160 but have suffered negative consequences from environment.

That isn't the case here. We DO know what caused the 140 IQ because we set up the parameters such that we know.

I can't give you a course on statistics here - again, go google 'regression to the mean'.

Helios Panoptes

11-12-2006, 02:13 AM