Will all people of the world mix creating one race in the future?

[Rethel]

Le Brok, topic is huge, multithreadical, and has no longer sense to disscuse, because we can over
and over repeat the same, and as you see I have some difficulties whith clear express my thoughts.

Reasuming, I affirm, that:

- Light pigmentation doesn't need a reason to exist.
- Non light people were living from thousands of years in enviroment, in which they shouldn't, and they don't need that mutation.
- This mutation had chance to survive and dominate large area if it happend in small group of people which later grow in number and was more numeriuos that darker tribes.
- We can observe laking of light pigmentation when fair population mixed with darker - they don't die, as you trying to suggest, but ther're mixing and assimilated.
- So called many places, thousand of years and so on - it have no sense at all, because that what can be observe are disproving that statement.

And I don't uderstand, why you are upset with possibility, that mutation "evolved" in small population and after that
were spread, if you are strongly belivieng that this could happend in many places at the same time. This is illogocal.
Many places are good, because they are many, and one place is bad, because is one...

 

[sparkey]

Is there some anothers administrators on this forum who can do something whith that?

Mods & admins are currently reviewing moderation privileges of elite members, who are supposed to be special users but not moderators. That said, Kardu's warnings have been justified from my perspective; most moderators would have given at least a warning for "Are you normal or you forget some pills?"; please avoid insults like that. We will not be removing the warnings.

 

[Rethel]

I must return to some parts, because I see,
that I was misunderstand - partialy on porpose.

What I'm saying, is supported by many research in skin colour in climatic zones, diet, production of vitamin D3, and skin cancer. All of the body of research point to correlation and causation of these factors. It is a complete theory, which can explain every instance of human skin tone. Therefore it is the right one. That's how science work.

I didn't say that this is not true. Only I showed you, that people are existing thousands of years againts these factors.
And this is not contradictionary even with evolutionism, because these people were and still are living. Even in this one
particular (evolutionery) system of thinking not every mutation must have a purpose and must be needed. Thats all.

I have an impresion, that you pretend to not get it, because you are simply to much focused on this miracously "thousands of
years and many spontanical mutations in many places at similar time". So, why it did not happen earlier, but after the Ice Age,
after climate changed, and why in this time? It would be much better if it would happen a hundrets of times during the circa
forty thaosands years of existing people in Europe during the Ice Age...

As you prooved yourself, such a thing like lack of sunlight could be recompensate by food. So blondism is not needed.
How many years people lived in Europe in your favorite theory? 50.000 years? So through most than 90% of that huge
period of time they were very well without sun and blond hair. Even the climate was much worse than that in last 5k years.
Probably through this earlier 45k years people could figure it out how to survive in such extremal bad environment, and they
didn't forget about that recently about 5000 years ago when they got even more sun than through earlier 45.000 years,
when they were nonpale, and still today, not everyone is blond or redhead or paleskin.

Probably somewhere in this forum I was reading, that even in Middle Ages most of Europeans were still more tawny
than today. So this must be a real miracle - because climate through last 5000 years was not only warmer than in
previous 45.000, but in Middle Ages were probably one of wamest and sunest times in that long period of time.
So, this mutation wasn't helpfull in survival as claim theory.

And all this do not contradict with evolution (if you wish so blindly belive in that kind of nature process).

On other hand, we have a hodgepodge of your ideas which invoke supernatural forces or unproven phenomena to exist in order to justify them, and fails to consolidate known knowledge in a coherent hypothesis.

I dont know exactly what you talking about, but it is not to hard to enumerate "scientific" theories which were
"very rational" and "prooved by scientific methods" until they were prooved to be totaly wrong or even humbug.

I dont have obligation to belive in every theory which is made.
I have only obligation belive in facts.

As I was mention before, some years ago, were couple theories about how blond and red colours of hair became to exist, and when did it happend.
All of them are now wrong. This were fantasies, which were produced by scientists. Always I was reading and hearing, that ~5000 years (or even
twice much as that) it is to short time to evolved anything, especially some kind of human anthropological type (what you seem to still affirm), but
now, I read that light genes became to existence about 5000 years ago and dominated population recently not so long ago... a couple hundred
of years ago... So as you see yourself, not everything (what is based on this mithologicaly "many places and hundrets of thousands of years) is true.

I'm not a scientist, I'm even not a specialist - but like any other man, I don't have obligation to belive in every theory which is published.
In that case I dont belive in "many places in one time", but in one place where lived inbred small population. As Angela wrote, someone
published such thing like this: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31055-Ice-Age-Europeans-On-Brink-Of-Extinction So even your evolitionist guru's also belive in small
groups of people which lived in the past, so why if I belived in this also (maybe a little bigger groups), you don't allow me?

Again, it doesn't stop or disprove future improvements/mutations. Just because you say that improvements are not needed, it doesn't stop them. Unless you have powers of god.

But I never said that mutations don't exist!

Except few very old pictures, there are no Blacks in Abkhazia today. Died out?

They don't die out, but mixed with the locals.

According to your premise, white skin is recessive, so black skin colour should spread in population and dominate white locals. It didn't happen, therefore it is wrong.

And this is how you disprooved your own theory!!!
Because this is your theory, not mine! Even worse, because your theory is about recessive genes!

You are beliving, that single people in couple of places with white genes dominated darker population.
As you see, a whole group of people with dominant genes couldn't do that!
Why you dont listen me, but rather discuse with yourself?

I was always saying, that this goup of negors must not mix with locals, grow in number, and when they would be more
numeriuos than their neibours, then they could dominate population. What is untrue, unreasonable and illogical in that?!

Can you be for a moment not blindly focused on your mithological way of evolving?

Thanks to new technology we don't know how bad it used to be, and why our parents and grandparents were taking fish liver oil/tran regularly. If not they could get rickets.

Of course, but not everyone.
But still, 45.000 or more years in europe, and whole time in other parts in cold climate zone, people were living without white pigmentation, and still are...
This is a fact.

Either you are blind or have over hyper fantasy.

Not so hyper fantasy as you, who should belive, that there should live 100% of blond eskimos.
None of them ares fair (without european admixture) and the same refer to every other arctic tribe along with whole arctic circle.
You must be really blind not to see this...

You don't understand what you read. I said Black people left Africa, I never said they lived in Europe.

Maybe you don't, but scientists did.
However you don't said that in Europe were livind only fair people through whole history either.
So, you agree that in Europe through thousands of years were living at least swarthy people.

How came they are alive now, if it happened thousands of years ago? Do you realize how backward your logic is?

They mixed with local people, and you know abot that very well.
Why you still are trying pretend, that such things didn't happend?
Untrue dosen't proof your evolution of blond people theory at all...

Only Y chromosome survived, not the white people. Autonomously they all are like any other locals.

This chromosome, probably came from dead people who were killed by evolution process.
Black women cut of Y chromosome from dead bodies and exchange chromosomes of their sons or husbands...

There must were really very advanced science to do that!

Why shouldn't I.

Because your theory don't allow them

It was me who said that thanks to clothing and technology people can live everywhere these days, didn't I? Please read with comprehension.

And when I am talking about such things, why you don't allow me and you're talking about some evolution fairy tails?

Why you dont see, that people lived in arctic zones because of their technology, and the same was with domination of pale people in later times?

Again, you are either blind or a liar. The darkest American Natives are from Mexican plateau where radiation is strongest in America. The lightest are the Inuits. It is in agreement with UV radiation map I posted above.

Do you want make a gallery from that thread?

About eskimos, you yourself prooved me, that they are tawny.
Before your proof, I was never mentioned that before.
And even paler ones, are still dark haired and dark eyed.
I suppose, that this paler one, comes from not only european
admixture, but from newer asian migrations from syberia.
But every one of Indian zones had very tawny people as for our european averege.
Differences between indigenuos people of Americas are very small.
And now I know, that Eskimos are tawner too... thanks.

Explain again why we have so diverse populations of people if we started from one small group? I would like to noticed that you failed to give even one real life example of diversity coming from a small group of people.

If all people of the world would be totaly mixed - in their genom pool would be probably everything.
Then, when they would be divided in small inbred groups of people and by some generations have the
same number of people, or even smaller, then every one of this group will be different, because some
of genes would be lost - differet genes would be lost in different populations, and that would create
a differences in apperiance - which are not so numeriuos and big, as it seems to be. It is only a small
fraction of permille of or genes.

On other hand the "positive/advantageous mutation in relation with environment" theory eloquently explains why people are different around the plant. That's how science works.

No, that's how theory works, which must be a perpetum mobile for every accident, possibility and ocasion.

Because this is how science works! Everything needs to be explained in order to understand how it works. If you fallowed the science I wouldn't need to lose my time to explain how things work.

If you fallowed the science, you would know, that science can explain how something (what allready exist) works, looks and what attributes has. And only that.
Science cannot explain by scientific methods how something came to exist, if have not opportunity to observe that process. This is the reason why science
have need to create over and over again theories about how something happend, which mostly are falces - and it was the same with blond hair theories wich all were wrong in the past.

For science is the best doing about what is now and how it works, but not produce fantasies about how this became to exist (mostly from nothing).

If you would know this, you wouldn't need to lose your time as well as mine too...

That's a perfect example of mutations popping up randomly. In this case it is not a positive mutation and people don't live too long with it or their kids. It is weeded out quickly.

I didn't chose that example because this is desise, but to ilustrate basic mendelic priciple.
You are to inteligent to not understand this, and you create that problem for purpose.
I could chose people with very big or small noses and it would be the same.
If they are one on ten thousand in dominant population, they never dominate whole continent.
But if we gather them together, they could create a big inbred populatin and after that dominate continent.

Not because it is rare, but because it is a bad mutation. People don't live too long with it. How many times I have to explain that there are good and bad mutations, advantage versus disadvantage in environment.

I choose albono people, only to ilustrate, and because they look similar.
I didn't thought, that you would be so malicious, to change the point...
Maybe, if you think that light-skinism is similar negative and disaterous
mutations, as albinism, then ok.

But I don't think, that you are thinking like that...

. Humans are nature, and humans actions are nature too.
Obviously there was an advantage involved in it. We don't know exactly which one yet.

Sorry, but this is realy good joke...

And why my theory about "white gens" is bad, and your about R1 not?
Why human actions couldnt spread a "white genes" or mutation from
one place to the rest of the continent, exactly by the same way as this
was happend whith mutation called R1? Why? etrified:

Ridiculous statement. Don't compare your life to life of people in middle ages or anywhere in history. We live now in unique times, especially in the West, where no one dies of hunger anymore. This never happened in human history.
If you were dying of hunger you would even try to chew wood, but unlike milk, wood wouldn't give you calories to survive.

No, this statement is really ridiculous, because only a small percentige today living people (in Europe also) have that mutation,
and - as your point of view suggest - it should be much more rarer in the past. So, huge majoryty of people lived without that
mutation, and they didn't extinct. Humanity didn't survived because of that mutation, even in Middle Ages or during famine.
This is not true.

Almost all animals evolved and changed, with hominids included. It is impossible to explain without new mutations and natural selection.

So even if this wouldn't be true - either in particular case or general - you have no other choice, but only blindly follow that rule...

Wasn't it you who posted Eskimo with suntanned faces?

No, Not I.
Especially not in the middle of the winter, when there is almost not sun at all...

You are begin terryfing me... I am worry about you... really.

I'm sure I mentioned couple of times already that they supplemented vitamin D with raw liver diet. The vital information which you chose to ignore.

I don't ignor that!
You ignore that, because you think, that only people in Europe, after 45.000 of survival, were so dump, that they couldn't find right food too...
Lapps could, Eskimos could, Ugrofinns could, paleoasiatics could, Indians could - but Europeans living in warmer zones couldn't, after they
survive 45.000 years in much much worse environment... and their neighbours through next 4000-5000 years could do the same in Europe,
but dumm blondes clouldn't... I'm very courius, what happend to the brains of blond people, that they suddenly canot found or buyed optimal
food for themselves even when most of darker countryman could...

Dogs has been bread by people for about 30 thousand years, by way of allowing only bread dogs with traits selected by people.

I don't know what is so funny, because 1) not for 30.000 years, because dog's races are much mor younger, and 2) why very small group of dogs
can produce new race, and small group of people - cannot? because you said so? I thought, that genetic laws work the same way for everyones.
You really don't want understand so simple things on purpose - and I cannot understand why?

Mutations still happen blindly,

but

What many varieties?!!! They come from same parents and grandparents. They are all the same. In your hypothesis the variety always shows up from nothing, lol.

Dogs came form pra-dog or wolf.
From where during last 1000 years or even much less, came hundrets of varietis of dogs?
From nothing, or they so quickily muteted?

Change your miracle with spontaneous positive and negative mutations and you will understand how nature works.
This is not

Did I ever said, that mutations doesn't happend?

Then go back to Adam and Eve and try to explain. You would need to assume that god create black Adam and white Eve, to accommodate all colour of skin without evoking positive and negative mutations to exist. Also they would already have genes for lactose persistence, malaria resistance and sickle cell anemia, and all other existing variety of genes. Their genome would need to be 100 times bigger to accommodate all the varieties. This is nuts.

So, I see, that you allread close your mind for any other possibility.
Only one theory - even if is disproofed in same cases - is right always, even if is wrong.
This is sectarian thinking, not science.

Actually, blond hair and light eyes can give a better camouflage for hunting in the snow.

If this mutations happend in lats 5-6 thousand years, so what are you talking about!!!!!!!!?????????????????????

This is absurde!

5000 years ago people already cultivated corn, they build houses, and wearing clothes - which weren't a good camouflage on the snow!

They should hunt naked in the winter during Ice Age when temprature was like in Yakutia!
But even then, they were tawny or at the begining - black!

And red hair - this one hunter who had this mutation would be seeing from very large distant.

Sorry, but you're began talking nonsens, only because your belive must become true.
And this is science?!

It is just an idea.

Uff, so I must partialy say: sorry.

Nobody cared to make a hypothesis out of it. Or as well it might be a side effect of many whitening genes.

So if no one knows why, so why are you so opposed to idea of small goup who grow in number whith that mutation?

I'm not sure why you bringing hair colour to the equation when we are arguing about effects of skin colour on surviving of people.

No, we were (and I hope still are) talking about how european people became light: incuding skin, hair and eyes.

I claim simply, that it was in small group of people without any need and reason. That's all.

Either you want to understand the world, or live in you fantasy world. Your choice.

And what, if this "real world" are talking and teaching a nonsens?
Do you really wish me to belive in every nonsensical theory, only because some scentists said so?! etrified:
Even, if I see, that it doesn't work in real?

This is more similar to some sectarian cult, than to science...

For example, when I was little, in real world as a scientific fact was, that american economy is much worse than soviet.
If some one was thinking otherwise, he not only was living in fantasy world as you said, but could go to prison.
So, scientists can proove many things - it doesn't mean, that this is true, that it is not a fantasy, because about
scientific fantasies it is possible to write dozens of fat books begining from hairy and stupid neanderthals or maybe
from man from Piltdown... or maybe from phlogiston theory or mayby caloric theory... it was real science not fantasy...

 

[LeBrok]

I claim simply, that it was in small group of people without any need and reason. That's all.

If there was no reason for a change they would be still black with flat noses and other negroid traits. If there was no reason in selection of mutations we would have body parts, which wouldn't have a purpose. So far every thing we have has a purpose.
White skin produces 10 times more vitamin D3 than black skin in same UV light. How convenient when living in Northern Europe in weak sun radiation.

For example, when I was little, in real world as a scientific fact was, that american economy is much worse than soviet.
If some one was thinking otherwise, he not only was living in fantasy world as you said, but could go to prison.
So, scientists can proove many things - it doesn't mean, that this is true,

Here is your problem. You don't know what scientific fact is. Scientific fact is an observation or an idea which was confirmed by many times by independent scientists. Copernicus heliocentric theory was confirmed again and again by many, and it is a scientific fact. So was genetic programming and double helix theory, confirmed by many independent scientists around the planet.
On other hand, existence of a god(s) hypothesis was never proven and it is not a scientific fact, or existence of yeti or parallel universe.

So, scientists can proove many things - it doesn't mean, that this is true,

If scientists can proof again and again it is a scientific fact. Some things are tricky and take a long time to prove or disprove, but another good side of science is that science is self correcting. Meaning that, if some theories seams right at the beginning, given enough time and enough experiments the truth will persevere, and science will self correct, proving or disproving hypothesis and correct some theories.

 

[Rethel]

If there was no reason for a change they would be still black with flat noses and other negroid traits.

1) Personally I don't belive that they were 100% negroids form most hot and dry place of Africa - but it doesnt matter in that discussion.
2) Can you please for a moment imagine this what I'm trying tell you (I know that my english is bablle, but still..

)

If this mutation happend in small imbreding population (presume from two to ten times bigger as much like this group of Indians who colinized America) and in this small group this light mutation were preserved. And by coincidence, person who has this mutation, have many descendats who was still inbreading in this small group of people. So what would happen then? This mutation have a chacne to dominate this population - and if during this process we would have some deasises or war and by simply coincidence more lighter people were alive than darker - so we have light population, who after that grow in number and invaded smaller populations, conquerd them and assimilated them - precisely like it was happend whith mutation R1. Why do you reject in this case normal explanation which works in any other cases? Founder effect, bottleneck effect - why in this case with this mutation it couldn't happend? This my tribe would be something like this (originally even very brownskinned) family, where 14/16 persons have visible recessive mutation (another two people probably have this mutation also).

So please, don't tell me that this is impossible, and only "hocus-pocus blind need and purpose in many places at the same time" could do this. As you say yourself, blondism isn't bad mutation and in european enviroment, such people would be alive, and as you were claiming - they would have even better chances to survive, than neibouring tribes. So, they would growing in number much faster, than another people, and have even more necessery vitamins, than another people had through 45.000 years. And this is fully agreeable whith evolution and there is nothing unreasonable. Even mathematicaly in this scenario this mutation have much bigger chance to survival - in your scenario, her chances are dramaticly lower, even below zero.

If there was no reason in selection of mutations we would have body parts, which wouldn't have a purpose. So far every thing we have has a purpose.

So maybe we were disign?

White skin produces 10 times more vitamin D3 than black skin in same UV light. How convenient when living in Northern Europe in weak sun radiation.

Did I say, that it is not true?
But it doesn't mean, that this mutation have any need to exist by her own, and that it happened reacently in many places in one time in enviorment who was hunderts of times better since ca. 5000 years than previously 40.000 years and through the next 5000 years was even better. If this mutation would be neccesary, she would happen 45.000 years earlier, but she wasn't, and people were still alive in worse enviroment for eight times longer period, than this people who lived only 5000 years ago - do you realize that or not?

Here is your problem. You don't know what scientific fact is. Scientific fact is an observation or an idea which was confirmed by many times by independent scientists.

I can assure you, that theory about superiority of communism and his economy above capitalistic states where confirmed by many scientists in many countries during many many years. I, as normal person what should do? Belive them or not? You expect me to belive, besause scientists said so. The same was with communism. If some one was in America and was seeing what he was seeing - what should he claim? Other theories which I metioned were officaly confirmed by scientists, and they were claiming exactly the same at their time, as you do today. Or should I belive at the beginning of 20th century in Man from Piltdown or in stupid hairy Neaderthal-apeman? Should I? Why? This wasn't true, but was confirm by scientists and their methodology - exactly as you want make me to belive today.

Copernicus heliocentric theory was confirmed again and again by many, and it is a scientific fact. So was genetic programming and double helix theory, confirmed by many independent scientists around the planet.

Wrong example, because this are things, which still exist, and people can do experiments and observations on them.

This, about we are talking, happend only in theory, and no one never was a eyewitness to that "fact".
Everything what is talking about unwritten past and selfcreation, is only more or less a guess...

If scientists can proof again and again it is a scientific fact. Some things are tricky and take a long time to prove or disprove, but another good side of science is that science is self correcting. Meaning that, if some theories seams right at the beginning, given enough time and enough experiments the truth will persevere, and science will self correct, proving or disproving hypothesis and correct some theories.

But until this happen, it is expected from everone to belive, that this is reality and fact.
And every one who disagree with that is stupid, silly, living in fantasy and so on.
But wrong unprooved theory who is teaching as a fact and true - it is real fantasy.
Man from Pildawn was a fantasy through about 40 years - but was teaching as a fact and truth.
Every one who dont was beliving in that was considers as a silly and living in fantasy.
So, who exactly was living in fanatasy? Who?
Who was living in fanasy, who claim that Man from nebraska is a real thing?

Only someone insane could from one swine's teeth create such a real world:

And it doesn't matter how quick it was changed.
Scientists create this thing, and were teaching this as a fact. Scientific fact.
Normal person cannot know how much this scientific fact is a fact by your standarts.

So, dont expect me to take everything as a fact, because some one said so.

Tell me according to scientific mendelic and genetic rules: does my theory can happend or not.
If can - and I know that can - so why you so much oppose this? Do you really want fairy tail,
about unobserved thousands of years killing selection, if you have many exaples, that even
dominate genes which were in one not so small group vanished very quickly after they mixed
whith another more numeriuos people. And you have also real examples, that inbreeding are
really creating new phenotype. My thoery is more reasonable, more logical, more real (because
you can observe this in many cases) more statisticly and even mathematicly more probable than
yours. You have not only many exaples where you can my theory "see", but also you yourself give
enough dispooving facts for your own theory, and I cannot understand, why you still don't see this.

This is really amazing phenomenon.

You really want be scientificly right?
Ok, you can be, if you want so much

Eppur si muove...

 

[LeBrok]

If this mutation happend in small imbreding population (presume from two to ten times bigger as much like this group of Indians who colinized America) and in this small group this light mutation were preserved. And by coincidence, person who has this mutation, have many descendats who was still inbreading in this small group of people. So what would happen then? This mutation have a chacne to dominate this population - and if during this process we would have some deasises or war and by simply coincidence more lighter people were alive than darker - so we have light population, who after that grow in number and invaded smaller populations, conquerd them and assimilated them - precisely like it was happend whith mutation R1. Why do you reject in this case normal explanation which works in any other cases? Founder effect, bottleneck effect - why in this case with this mutation it couldn't happend? This my tribe would be something like this (originally even very brownskinned) family, where 14/16 persons have visible recessive mutation (another two people probably have this mutation also).

If this was done by a chance, we would have white and black populations scattered around the globe randomly. We would have mixed white and black tribes in Africa and in Europe. It is not so. Higher latitudes are always with lighter populations and darker populations around equator. This all means that there are selective forces in place, not random chances.

I know people are fascinated with albino mutation and place it as an example of white people. This is wrong, because albino mutation commonly happens only on one gene OCA. People can't tan for skin protraction, can burn skin easily in the sun, therefore suffer more skin cancers, and have severe vision problems too. It is classified as a disease.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/albinism/basics/symptoms/con-20029935
However, white/Caucasian skin effect is caused by process of multi-gene mutation. It happens that these mutations don't cause vision problems and produce more vitamin D in weaker sunlight. How convenient.

But it doesn't mean, that this mutation have any need to exist by her own, and that it happened reacently in many places in one time in enviorment who was hunderts of times better since ca. 5000 years than previously 40.000 years and through the next 5000 years was even better. If this mutation would be neccesary, she would happen 45.000 years earlier, but she wasn't, and people were still alive in worse enviroment for eight times longer period, than this people who lived only 5000 years ago - do you realize that or not?

Don't forget that hunter gatherers had different diet. They ate lots of animal meat and organs rich in vitamin D3. It is the farmers that changed our diet drastically into starches and vegetables, which lack vitamin D3. For that reason farmers needed to get whiter to get it from the Sun.

I can assure you, that theory about superiority of communism and his economy above capitalistic states where confirmed by many scientists in many countries during many many years. I, as normal person what should do? Belive them or not? You expect me to belive, besause scientists said so.

Yes. Most people don't understand science and need to really on faith to believe what scientists say or not.
If it comes to superiority of communist economy, nobody ever proved that it produces more than capitalism, especially per capita. Communists claimed that communist economic system is more fair and just, therefore better. Regardless, it was not an exact science, but philosophy of morality of distribution of goods and capital.

Wrong example, because this are things, which still exist, and people can do experiments and observations on them.

This, about we are talking, happend only in theory, and no one never was a eyewitness to that "fact".
Everything what is talking about unwritten past and selfcreation, is only more or less a guess...

How do you know we can't observe a new whitening mutation in Eskimos or Inuits? Likewise we can examine bones of our ancestors and know when certain mutations happen, and how fast they had spread. We can also do experiments with white mice without a fur, release them in Africa, and check after few generations if they are getting darker with selective mutation. We can do a computer simulation to see how positive mutations are selected.

But until this happen, it is expected from everone to belive, that this is reality and fact.
And every one who disagree with that is stupid, silly, living in fantasy and so on.
But wrong unprooved theory who is teaching as a fact and true - it is real fantasy.
Man from Pildawn was a fantasy through about 40 years - but was teaching as a fact and truth.
Every one who dont was beliving in that was considers as a silly and living in fantasy.
So, who exactly was living in fanatasy? Who?
Who was living in fanasy, who claim that Man from nebraska is a real thing?

First time I hear this, though there are many similar examples. You don't need to go even so far. Some schools still teach creationism, and some people call it science. But it is not, science needs to be confirmed, and experiments repeated interdependently by many. Then it is confirmed as a fact.

And it doesn't matter how quick it was changed.
Scientists create this thing, and were teaching this as a fact. Scientific fact.
Normal person cannot know how much this scientific fact is a fact by your standarts.

True, we have to be very careful in what we believe. There are bad people and bad scientists out there.

Tell me according to scientific mendelic and genetic rules: does my theory can happend or not.

Yes, it might have a chance to happen on a small scale, in small population. However, giving it a longer time and big population it will be overwritten by much stronger forces of natural selection. This albino family is an excellent example of it. It happens on small scale in family or could spread a bit in the village. But we know from observation of Indian population that it never had spread on bigger scale. You can go on a visit to India or Africa and meet thousands of people and nobody will be albino.

If can - and I know that can - so why you so much oppose this? Do you really want fairy tail,
about unobserved thousands of years killing selection, if you have many exaples, that even
dominate genes which were in one not so small group vanished very quickly after they mixed
whith another more numeriuos people. And you have also real examples, that inbreeding are
really creating new phenotype. My thoery is more reasonable, more logical, more real (because
you can observe this in many cases) more statisticly and even mathematicly more probable than
yours. You have not only many exaples where you can my theory "see", but also you yourself give
enough dispooving facts for your own theory, and I cannot understand, why you still don't see this.

Only in your head.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

You're probably not aware of it, but American Ashkenazi Jews used to "sit shiva" (mourn as if dead) for members of their families who married "out". I had a friend whose family did that.

Yeah, my grandparents did that (and tore their clothes, which is the traditional way Jews mourn the death of someone close to them) when my aunt married a frenchman. Funny enough, they were quite pleased when my dad introduced my (non-jewish) mother to them, go figure.

Yet again, my grandparents' marriage was arranged and my paternal grandfather's line has a very long trail of cousin marriages.

 

[MOESAN]

Hopala! this thread went very far from its first purpose I think!
here, just some modest thoughts, without trying to explode the thread! (why are some people so short in patience and sport spirit?)
- I'm not a scholar as it can be seen in some of my posts - evolution seems linked to hazardous mutations which can be selected by natural pressure (of any kind) this one varying according to time and place (not very new, I know) - now, the undertanding of the mutations/selection system is maybe interpreted in two simplistic ways sometimes? the genes are not so completely independant one from another in their functions and so in their selective advantages or disadvantages (see recessive genes for some plagues or diseases, letal but still present thousends of years later) - we see sometimes different answers to the same pressure and the genome itself we are tempted to see as a mechanical or robotlike piling up of blind genes shows sometimes something that could have a sort of proper "intelligence" (we have not explained - profans like me at least - the presence of so much non-coding DNA) ; is that to say that need creates mutation? -
-as said (by Lebrok if I remember well) a lot of mutations, by force "fragile" because of their uniqueless in some cases, are without any descendance when others do very well -
- what I think is that the today human population is less and less submitted to complete selective pressure (complicated yet, as I wrote upper) and so what occurred in History could very well no more occur in future, or with a very reduced speed -

this thread: the future mondial population will be very variated for a long time - at least concerning external traits - because the crossings more and more numerous cannot eliminate all the various features, only some very rare traits - as human beings are often looking for "exotic" features and colours (a kind of "sexual tourism",more spred that its contrary, the research of similarities found at some degree in populations under a colonialistic class system) traits which could have been eliminated can survive - so we 'll loose a lot of details traits but not the more striking differences - you have only to look at the differences between a first generation crossing result in children when two very different types of population mate one to another and the following generations - look at the South America population where already within variated population of 'europoids', 'negroids' and 'mongoloid amerindians' were crossed: it's an explosion of different faces and not a fusion - the old types ("subraces") were incompletely unified populations submitted to ancient selections, drifts and bottlenecks by isolation, phenomenons which will not occur in today mondial human population -

I remark the today life conditions doesn't select the blockhead syndrome, by the way -
I 'll go to pray Bacchus-Dyonisos to calm down the too ardent warriors - good evening

 

[MOESAN]

just a word more: some disadvantageous mutations don't kill people before reproduction age -

 

[LeBrok]

There is a big chance that before we all mix, we will start making a design babies through genetic manipulation. In this case it will be up to parents to describe phenotype of a child. We could end up even more varied, with more combination of features, than we are now. Perhaps we can see a birth of new races, based on fashion of a time. Same way we can recognize decades by style of cloths and houses.

Will we have a new occupation, "a baby designer"? Future Micheal Angelos will not shape people out of stone but out of genes.

 

[Fire Haired14]

There is a big chance that before we all mix, we will start making a design babies through genetic manipulation. In this case it will be up to parents to describe phenotype of a child. We could end up even more varied, with more combination of features, than we are now. Perhaps we can see a birth of new races, based on fashion of a time. Same way we can recognize decades by style of cloths and houses.

Will we have a new occupation, "a baby designer"? Future Micheal Angelos will not shape people out of stone but out of genes.

You make a mistake by assuming everyone will mix. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. Outside of the Americas and some other former-colonies everyone has been in there home region for 1,000s of years and those regions are very undiverse. Even in America people almost exclusively mix within their "race"(mostly based on physical features and culture).

Unless there's some grand-problem what's the use of genetically modifying people? There isn't much of a reason. People realize the potential dangers and how unfair it is to do that. I don't see that happening on a large-scale anytime soon either.

 

[Angela]

You make a mistake by assuming everyone will mix. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. Outside of the Americas and some other former-colonies everyone has been in there home region for 1,000s of years and those regions are very undiverse. Even in America people almost exclusively mix within their "race"(mostly based on physical features and culture).

Unless there's some grand-problem what's the use of genetically modifying people? There isn't much of a reason. People realize the potential dangers and how unfair it is to do that. I don't see that happening on a large-scale anytime soon either.

I couldn't disagree more, Fire-Haired. First of all there are all the diseases people would want to erase. One of the most intractable problems in modern industrial societies is that a good percentage of the population isn't capable of functioning at the intellectual level you need for the kinds of jobs that are available, so that would be on the list too. What about schizophrenia, or bi-polar disorder or anxiety ridden. That's on a societal level.

On a personal level, I can guarantee you that parents with the money would line up to get designer babies. Right now, women spend thousands of dollars to get the "look" that's currently popular because of some actress or model. For a lot of parents, children are an accessory. They'll want the best accessory according to their own standards, but you can bet they'll all want harmonious features, intelligence, athletic ability, you name it.

It will happen. I'd bet a small fortune on it.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I couldn't disagree more, Fire-Haired. First of all there are all the diseases people would want to erase. One of the most intractable problems in modern industrial societies is that a good percentage of the population isn't capable of functioning at the intellectual level you need for the kinds of jobs that are available, so that would be on the list too. What about schizophrenia, or bi-polar disorder or anxiety ridden. That's on a societal level.

On a personal level, I can guarantee you that parents with the money would line up to get designer babies. Right now, women spend thousands of dollars to get the "look" that's currently popular because of some actress or model. For a lot of parents, children are an accessory. They'll want the best accessory according to their own standards, but you can bet they'll all want harmonious features, intelligence, athletic ability, you name it.

It will happen. I'd bet a small fortune on it.

The majority of humans in developed countries life normal lives with no great disasters, there's no great need for genetic-modifications. Having easy access to the ability to genetically modify people can lead to so many complex problems, and people are smart enough to realize this. It won't be regulated well and won't be equally distributed. Those are the main reason i think people will be against it. Unless it is for solving diseases and improving life and is strictly regulated, I don't think it'll happen.

It's like taking performance enhancers in athletics. Most people aren't born with incredible athletic ability, being an athlete is very hard, but people don't tolerate enhancers because it's cheating and the competition will revolve around who has the best drugs.

Right now, women spend thousands of dollars to get the "look" that's currently popular because of some actress or model. For a lot of parents, children are an accessory. They'll want the best accessory according to their own standards, but you can bet they'll all want harmonious features, intelligence, athletic ability, you name it.

Women's obsession with their image might become one of the biggest challenges to prevent genetic-modification, plastic surgery, and playing with nature in general.

 

[LeBrok]

The majority of humans in developed countries life normal lives with no great disasters, there's no great need for genetic-modifications. Having easy access to the ability to genetically modify people can lead to so many complex problems, and people are smart enough to realize this. It won't be regulated well and won't be equally distributed. Those are the main reason i think people will be against it. Unless it is for solving diseases and improving life and is strictly regulated, I don't think it'll happen.

You have trust in blind mother nature, luck and your God. I'd rather trust human intelligence, or my intelligence in creating my offspring.

It's like taking performance enhancers in athletics. Most people aren't born with incredible athletic ability, being an athlete is very hard, but people don't tolerate enhancers because it's cheating and the competition will revolve around who has the best drugs.

Guess what, if everyone is born a super athletes, who is going to need performance enhancing drugs?

Why don't you want all the people to be healthy, beautiful and smart?

It's like taking performance enhancers in athletics. Most people aren't born with incredible athletic ability, being an athlete is very hard, but people don't tolerate enhancers because it's cheating and the competition will revolve around who has the best drugs.

Technology makes everything cheep and affordable. 100 years ago only rich could have a car, and it was a primitive piece of engineering, with 20 HP, when compared to modern vehicles. Now everybody has one, with all the power features and all the whistles, with 200 horse power. 100 years ago only rich could fly a plain. It was expensive and very risky. Now everybody flies jets around the world, and it is the safest mode of transportation. 100 years ago only rich could have a phone. Now everybody has it in one's pocket, which is actually a computer, gps, organizer, assistant, internet, a store, etc, etc.
There is no reason to doubt that genetic technology will be cheap and available to every human being on this planet. Everybody who doesn't want to play a genetic lottery and desire to have a healthy, beautiful and smart kid.

Why won't we leave it to a parental choice?

 

[Fire Haired14]

You have trust in blind mother nature, luck and your God. I'd rather trust human intelligence, or my intelligence in creating my offspring.

What does religion have to do with any of this? I don't think society is ready to take the risk. Like I said before, there can be complex problems caused by genetic engineering none of us can foretell. It's such a powerful and easily corrupted thing, why take the risk? Preventing disease, etc. is fine if it is heavily regulated. Wanting to be athletic and look good, is plain ridiculous and shallow and will cause inequality between those who can afford genetic engineering and those who can't.

Guess what, if everyone is born a super athletes, who is going to need performance enhancing drugs?

Someone will want to become a super-super athlete.

Why don't you want all the people to be healthy, beautiful and smart?

I'm afraid of the potential problems. Besides we became the way we are through evolution, and is it right for everyone to be attractive, smart, etc.? We have to have ugly and unattractive people. Genetic engineering has the potential of destroying healthy human society. Genetic engineering is not evolution and isn't natural. It'll create an artificial race.

Technology makes everything cheep and affordable. 100 years ago only rich could have a car, and it was a primitive piece of engineering, with 20 HP, when compared to modern vehicles. Now everybody has one, with all the power features and all the whistles, with 200 horse power. 100 years ago only rich could fly a plain. It was expensive and very risky. Now everybody flies jets around the world, and it is the safest mode of transportation. 100 years ago only rich could have a phone. Now everybody has it in one's pocket, which is actually a computer, gps, organizer, assistant, internet, a store, etc, etc.
There is no reason to doubt that genetic technology will be cheap and available to every human being on this planet. Everybody who doesn't want to play a genetic lottery and desire to have a healthy, beautiful and smart kid.

Why won't we leave it to a parental choice?

Genetic engineering isn't the same ting as cars, etc. I highly doubt any government anytime soon will allow genetic engineering to be sold. The animal-like fight for it and unequal distribution will be a nightmare.

 

[Maleth]

What worries me with designed babies on the part of how they should look according to parents choices. (all the rest is pretty fine i think) that they might grow not approving to their parents choices and blame how they look on them. I have come across many siblings who are world apart in regards to tastes and preferences visa vi their parents choices in a multitude of ways including fashion and of course also looks.

 

[LeBrok]

What does religion have to do with any of this? I don't think society is ready to take the risk. Like I said before, there can be complex problems caused by genetic engineering none of us can foretell. It's such a powerful and easily corrupted thing, why take the risk? Preventing disease, etc. is fine if it is heavily regulated. .

In case you are not familiar with christian dogma, it says that all people are God's creation. Therefore, it means, playing with genes is God's domain, not people's.
I'm sure it will be heavily regulated anyway.

Wanting to be athletic and look good, is plain ridiculous and shallow and will cause inequality between those who can afford genetic engineering and those who can't

Even if it is shallow for you, should you impose you feelings on other parents?

Someone will want to become a super-super athlete.

Why don't we leave it to parents. Let's not fantasies that some parents would want 4 arms and 3 penises for their sons. And that's why genetic engineering should be forbidden.
By the same token lets forbid public transportation to all, because some can afford Ferraris. It is unfair!

I'm afraid of the potential problems. Besides we became the way we are through evolution, and is it right for everyone to be attractive, smart, etc.? We have to have ugly and unattractive people. Genetic engineering has the potential of destroying healthy human society. Genetic engineering is not evolution and isn't natural. It'll create an artificial race.

It is clear to all of us, that you are afraid of potential anything, including things that are not created by God, like atheism, liberalism or feminism.

Genetic engineering isn't the same ting as cars, etc. I highly doubt any government anytime soon will allow genetic engineering to be sold.

That's right, people generally are afraid of unfamiliar things. It took a long time for people to accept female voting, democracy, birth control, artificial insemination, etc. It doesn't mean they were bad things, it rather says more about human nature. We are afraid of new, we are afraid of changes, in general.

The animal-like fight for it and unequal distribution will be a nightmare.

Do you see unequal distribution of cellphones? Perhaps we should regulate this technology too?

 

[Fire Haired14]

I'm tired of being dis respected and treated as weird on Eupedia because I have conservative tendencies. I'm tired of every middle aged liberal here, like you and Aberdeen, thinking it's justified to insult religious and conservative people. It doesn't just happen at this forum it happens in most public places: in schools, media, etc. and it needs to end. I deserve just as much respect.

For crying out loud will you guys stop with the sarcasm!!! You're not mr. tolerant if in every other post you're insulting someone, then lie by denying it afterwards. You can express your views without so much attitude.

I'm ready to have a civilized debate whenever you are.

In case you are not familiar with christian dogma, it says that all people are God's creation. Therefore, it means, playing with genes is God's domain, not people's.
I'm sure it will be heavily regulated anyway.

You're twisting the words of the Bible to have a certain view on genetic engineering which you want it to. There's nothing about genetic engineering in the Bible. I'm purely expressing my personal opinion.

Even if it is shallow for you, should you impose you feelings on other parents?

Tolerance is not do whatever you want. I've explained before to you how the "do whatever" philosophy doesn't work. There are hard-to-define limits, but they're nonetheless there and need to be. People in the west are too obsessed with individualism, freedom, and tolerance. There's a wrong assumption that the rule maker is always the bad guy. It's not always bad to take "take away freedoms" like too many people think. Is making LSD illegal a bad thing? Are people wrongly imposing their feelings on others?

We should impose rules on shallow parents who will give their children an unfair advantage. People should not be allowed to do whatever the heck they want to their bodies.

Why don't we leave it to parents. Let's not fantasies that some parents would want 4 arms and 3 penises for their sons. And that's why genetic engineering should be forbidden.
By the same token lets forbid public transportation to all, because some can afford Ferraris. It is unfair!

I have no idea what-type of genetic engineering you're in favor of. IF someone wasted their time on the work they could find concrete dangers of genetic engineering being widespread. It depends on the type of regulation though of course. If someone shows me the evidence with a certain type of regulation there are no dangers I'll agree genetic engineering is okay. The evidence to me right now though is pointing in the other direction.

It is clear to all of us, that you are afraid of potential anything, including things that are not created by God, like atheism, liberalism or feminism.

What the heck does feminism have to do with God? I'm not taking this!!! I have respect for myself and my views and will not be bullied into allowing the majority(inclu. you) here at Eupedia tell me what I believe, and forge in aspects of my believe that make their position seem stronger and mine weaker.

I have nothing against women. That's my view on feminism. Let male and females flow naturally in society with little regulation, that's my view on gender roles. I'm against most of whom I've seen labeled as "feminist", because they're unhealthily obsessed with the female gender, wrongly assume each gender has to be the same to be equal, and are for enforced affirmative action. The 50/50 thing by 2030 is an example of what I'm talking about.

That's right, people generally are afraid of unfamiliar things. It took a long time for people to accept female voting, democracy, birth control, artificial insemination, etc. It doesn't mean they were bad things, it rather says more about human nature. We are afraid of new, we are afraid of changes, in general.

Fear is not why I'm against genetic engineering. It's because from what I know so far there are a lot of potential problems. It's quite clear you have a strange favoritive biased for genetic engneering anyways.

Do you see unequal distribution of cellphones? Perhaps we should regulate this technology too?

Cell phones don't make you physically and mentally superior to your peers. These two can't be compared.

 

[Kardu]

There is a big chance that before we all mix, we will start making a design babies through genetic manipulation. In this case it will be up to parents to describe phenotype of a child. We could end up even more varied, with more combination of features, than we are now. Perhaps we can see a birth of new races, based on fashion of a time. Same way we can recognize decades by style of cloths and houses.

Will we have a new occupation, "a baby designer"? Future Micheal Angelos will not shape people out of stone but out of genes.

Eugenics adherents are rejoicing in their graves

 

[LeBrok]

We should impose rules on shallow parents who will give their children an unfair advantage.
.

Wow, you will be the only parent in the world who doesn't want to give his kids and advantage. The unfair advantage of having kids healthy, smart and beautiful.