This will sound incredibly racist for all the fanatic liberal cocksuckers on this board but will blond people still exist in the future especially with all this media promoted miscegenation going around?

File: 199 KB, 804x652, left racist double standard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:36:45 2011 No.2428744 [Reply] [Original]

This will sound incredibly racist for all the fanatic liberal cocksuckers on this board but will blond people still exist in the future especially with all this media promoted miscegenation going around?

>>	i- !LoVeEKpnh2 Thu Jan 27 23:37:45 2011 No.2428755 >>2428744 > pic implying studies haven't actually shown that all children of all races in the US prefer white dolls

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:39:26 2011 No.2428766 File: 34 KB, 505x529, 1244181265074.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw I don't give in to trivial political ideologies I only fight for Terrans.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:40:45 2011 No.2428780 File: 34 KB, 505x529, 1244181265074.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw I don't give in to trivial political ideologies I only fight for the Terran Entellechy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:44:45 2011 No.2428799 Blondes are stupid. If they disappear, it'll just be evolution doing its job. Fuck your aesthetic preferences.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:46:38 2011 No.2428806 >>2428799 What about brunettes with blond or green eyes? Still recessive genes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:47:45 2011 No.2428810 >>2428799 What about brunettes with blond or green eyes? Still recessive traits.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:51:45 2011 No.2428822 >>2428810 >>2428744 >I have no idea how genetics work Miscegenation doesn't destroy genes, even recessive ones.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:52:45 2011 No.2428829 >>2428822 It suppresses traits.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:54:45 2011 No.2428839 >>2428829 The genes still exist. Two carriers of recessive traits will still produce the trait. What combination of circumstances would lead to the complete disappearance of blond hair? Really, I'm curious.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:56:45 2011 No.2428850 >>2428755 > pic implying studies haven't actually shown that all children of all races in the US prefer white dolls >children of all races in the US prefer white dolls >in the US >implying the reason isn't because they've been brainwashed by society

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:56:45 2011 No.2428852 And nothing of value was lost. Seriously OP, what's the matter? And yes, you are racist and you are holding us back as a society.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:57:45 2011 No.2428854 >>2428839 If the gene doesn't get passed on. You can lose a recessive trait in 2 generations. You can do a simple Punnett square to confirm.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:57:45 2011 No.2428856 >>2428852 And I am aware that I would technically be discriminating against blondes in my post. I'm blond. I guess that means I can say that. u mad?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:58:45 2011 No.2428860 >>2428854 No. No, that's not how it works at all. The gene doesn't get destroyed or disappear.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 27 23:58:45 2011 No.2428862 >>2428744 Blondes? You mean those people that used smart people with brown hair and brown eyes to device methods to commit genocide against other races? Yeah they're pretty likable people

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:00:45 2011 No.2428870 >is just waiting for a blonde haired blue eyed black chick without the floppy black tits, also can leave the ridiculously fat arse behind too this would be amazingly odd to see and I have no idea if it would be attractive to me. also, no one cares

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:00:45 2011 No.2428871 brown/almond skin: Roman master race blonde/green/blue eyes: Barbarian scum

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:01:45 2011 No.2428874 >>2428744 no because they will die of from skin cancer also chicks did big cocks deal with it

:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Jan 28 00:02:45 2011 No.2428878

As a scientist, its very common that peers and friends come from different countries and we all speak different languages. We get along perfectly fine, most of us are good friends and what not.

We have more things in common,(i.e our education, humor, hobbies) than superficial differences like language, or race.

It seems that the so-called problems that multiculturalism bring, are mainly caused by ignorance, and racism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:04:45 2011 No.2428884 File: 86 KB, 600x1144, 600px-Punnett_Square.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2428860 Look at this pic, the recessive gene is gone in this scenario.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:05:45 2011 No.2428888 >>2428874 Because that statement wasn't racist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:06:45 2011 No.2428891 >>2428852 Look up the definition of racist, dumbass. Also how is this holding back society?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:06:45 2011 No.2428892 Blondes are constantly devolving and you can't blame interracial breeding for that one. Check Vikings vs modern day Skandfags. Brown-hair whites FTW. Superior race.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:07:45 2011 No.2428893 Prosperity whitens. "Favored" white traits like straight hair, light colored eyes and hair will become more prevalent around the world.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:07:45 2011 No.2428894 >>2428878 Or that cultures can't all coexist together and the notion that they can is proven wrong time and time again.

>>	Mediterraneanfag Fri Jan 28 00:08:45 2011 No.2428900 >>2428871 Greekfag brownie approving this post.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:08:45 2011 No.2428901 >>2428893 Citation needed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:09:45 2011 No.2428906 >>2428755 I'm pretty sure that in ancient times they would have picked the less pale looking barbie had it not been for white people's use of Muslim and Asian technologies to rape and pillage the rest of the world like a swarm of termites

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:10:45 2011 No.2428910 wow, this is a gay thread nothing will ever die out. ranga's and albino's are proof of this. people's culture probably still has more to do with what they find attractive than their genetic background.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:10:45 2011 No.2428911

>>2428884
No it's not. I don't know what you're trying to show with the circles and the arrow, but all of those lowercase letters are recessive genes. If two carriers mate, a quarter of their offspring will have the trait. Have you ever seen a Punnet square before?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:10:45 2011 No.2428912 >>2428906 >implying white people didn't develop their own technologies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:11:45 2011 No.2428914 >>2428901 Pretty much reality. Light eyes yes but blond hair? most people are like "meh" about them these days. CAPTCHA: worleader finding

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:11:45 2011 No.2428919 >Walk into any upper level Math lecture in any top university >Not a single blonde in sight And nothing of value was lost.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:11:45 2011 No.2428920 >>2428900 have a shave you hairy walrus

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:11:45 2011 No.2428922 >>2428912 >implying they did

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:12:45 2011 No.2428923 >>2428912 Capitalism and the nation state the rest of the world had no chance

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:12:45 2011 No.2428926 >>2428911 Yeah, the recessive gene isn't chosen and it's history.

OPisafag Fri Jan 28 00:13:45 2011 No.2428928

>>2428884

Yes, that is what a monohybrid cross looks like.
The gene didn't disappear, even in your pic.

What happens in a monohybrid cross with one purestrain dominant and one heterozygous recessive is half the progeny receives a recessive trait from the heterozygous parent, half doesn't. None of them display the trait because the purestrain dominant conceals it.

The allele frequency is preserved.

Sure is highschool level genetics in here.
L2 read pundette squares

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:13:45 2011 No.2428932 >>2428922 They did, look up most of the inventors in world history and look at their skin color.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:13:45 2011 No.2428935 >>2428912 It wasn't their inventions that lead them to renessance and industrial revolution.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:14:45 2011 No.2428937 >>2428926 ...isn't chosen? Are you serious?

>>	Mediterraneanfag Fri Jan 28 00:15:45 2011 No.2428943 >>2428920 You just mad for my rugged masculinity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:15:45 2011 No.2428944 File: 93 KB, 600x1374, 600px-Punnett_Square.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2428928 Where is the recessive gene now?

:D !!s2uh28knASO Fri Jan 28 00:15:45 2011 No.2428945

>>2428894
i think that intelligent people like i have the opportunity to deal with in a constant basis, are more aware of their environment and are more connected to ideas that come from different parts of the world.

I do believe that Muslim that grew up in a tribe in some small village in Afghanistan would fine out very weird and freighting to live in new york.

Again, its just a matter of ignorance, which a lot of sub-cultures take advantage of this ignorance so they can manipulate people by reinforcing stereotypes on them.

This is nothing new, this strategy was used since the crusades, and in WWII by both sides.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:16:45 2011 No.2428946 File: 5 KB, 130x100, s1650540039_78156_7846.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2428944 it flew to...... uranus.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:16:45 2011 No.2428948 >>2428937 Selected. OK. geez I have to use exact language on this board or you'll run into an exception error.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:16:45 2011 No.2428949 Genetics 101: the blonde hair reccessive gene will never dissapear unless every person that has sex is tested to make sure they don't have the gene. aka: reccessive traits may dissappear but the allele will never completely dissapear

OPisafag Fri Jan 28 00:16:45 2011 No.2428950

>>2428926

>Recessive gene isn't chosen
>You started out with 4 genes total, and in both cases the frequency of the recessive gene shows up at the same frequency it was originally in in the parents.
>All you have to do is know how to count in order to understand why you are wrong.
>You are fully retarded, leave my /sci/ immediately

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:16:45 2011 No.2428952 >>2428944 Bottom right of the second square expresses the recessive trait. Look, it's clear you're too stupid to figure this out, so just read this: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/blondes.asp

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:16:45 2011 No.2428953 >>2428937 Hey just because people want to have sex with a dumb blonde bimbo doesn't mean they want to have kids with them

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:17:45 2011 No.2428956 >>2428948 see>>2428950 I wasn't objecting to your language, you're just an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:18:45 2011 No.2428966 >>2428953 Then the extinction of blondes is post-pawned 'till contraception methods are perfected.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:19:45 2011 No.2428980 Blondes are either jocks or rednecks I'm guessing OP is the latter

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:20:45 2011 No.2428982 >>2428932 I love how unscientific the white supremacist arguments for the scientific prowess of the white race are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:20:45 2011 No.2428987 >>2428950 Are you this dumb that you can't understand a simple graph if the recessive genes aren't passed onto kids there is no way there will be a recessive trait seen again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:21:45 2011 No.2428996 >>2428987 They are passed on. Again, all of those lowercase letters are the recessive gene. In fact, the bottom right of the second square, the one with two lowercase letters, even expresses the trait. Lrn2Punnet

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:22:45 2011 No.2429002 File: 45 KB, 526x421, ihasafunny-rednecks-gene-pool-closed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2428980 There are no jocks on the internets... but where the heck do rednecks plague their internets on?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:23:45 2011 No.2429006 >>2428996 Each of the four squares represents an offspring, you don't see all those genes in one offspring. lrn2Punnett.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:24:45 2011 No.2429013 >>2429002 they need the internet for faux news

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:24:45 2011 No.2429016 Maybe in the future if 99% of the population dies from some some massive disaster. At this point humanity is retaining everything.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:24:45 2011 No.2429017 >>2428996 He thinks that a 25% chance at eliminating an allele equals a 100% chance of it occuring with every new born.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:25:45 2011 No.2429021 >>2428996 >>2429006 Also If the offspring with the 2 dominant alleles is the only one the parents have their bloodline ceases to carry the recessive gene.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:25:45 2011 No.2429022 moot is blonde he's also a fag by the transitive property blondes are fags

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:26:45 2011 No.2429031

>>2429006
Are you retarded? Each square represents 1/4 of all of the offspring produce by that particular cross. Since that cross happens any time those parental genotypes cross, there will be many, many of those crosses. 1/4 of the offspring will express the trait and 1/2 will carry it. The gene may not appear in a particular individual (only 1/4 of the offspring) but it doesn't disappear from the genepool.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:27:45 2011 No.2429042 >>2429017 I never said that, I said in this situation if the 25% chance happens the recessive gene is out of the family.

OPisafag Fri Jan 28 00:28:45 2011 No.2429046

>>2428987

>You think a pundette square is a graph

Have you learned to count yet? Here, I'll count for you.
Case one: You have Yy, YY parents.
And you have two Yy offspring, and two YY offspring.
Notice the fractional abundance of having two Yy and two YY offspring is identical to the original fractional abundance, which was one YY and one Yy. The pair of parents had 3 Ys for every one y, and in the offspring, you have 3 Ys for every 1y.
The fact that the dominant gene has "more" of it does not matter in the slightest, because the FREQUENCY is preserved. You are not seeing the frequency of y diminish in any way.

Next square, you have 2 parents, both Yy.
You have two Yy children, and one YY child, and one yy child.
overall, the frequency of Y to y is again, the same.
Where exactly, do you see the little y's disappearing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:29:45 2011 No.2429051 >>2429042 And how does that eliminate all blonds again?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:29:45 2011 No.2429052 >>2429031 It can disappear from the genepool if only children with dominant alleles are born and when the parents carrying the recessive alleles die off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:30:45 2011 No.2429056 >>2429046 If there are only YY offspring the y's are history.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:31:45 2011 No.2429060 >>2429052 That is astronomically unlikely.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:31:45 2011 No.2429061 >>2429051 Blond is a recessive trait.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:31:45 2011 No.2429063 >>2429042 I was saying to you what the troll in this thread is thinking. He thinks that if the rec allele is gone in one birth that theres a chance of it being gone in all births. He obviously doesn't know statistics.

>>	OPisafag Fri Jan 28 00:32:45 2011 No.2429065 >>2429056 Very good, they indeed would. And that would mean yy is a recessive lethal allele. Now explain to me why you think this applies to any recessive allele.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:32:45 2011 No.2429066 >>2429060 Our existence is unlikely, the unlikely tends to happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:32:45 2011 No.2429067 >>2429056 There are millions and millions of those crosses. The odds of ONLY YY being born are so absurdly small as to be practically impossible.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:33:45 2011 No.2429072 >>2429061 Yes, that was the premise of this entire discussion. As we have seen, even recessive genes are passed on in 75% of cases.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:33:45 2011 No.2429073 >>2429022 i thought he was a ginger LOLCAPTCHA: chastiti which

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:33:45 2011 No.2429075 >>2429063 As recessive traits become less and less prevalent in the course of centuries they may die off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:34:45 2011 No.2429078 >>2429066 >The unlikely tends to happen. No. The unlikely tends not to happen. THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT UNLIKELY

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:34:45 2011 No.2429082 >>2429066 Our existence makes perfect sense given the environment that lead us to here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:34:45 2011 No.2429084 >>2429067 Couple that with low birthrates and it's more likely.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:34:45 2011 No.2429085 >>2429075 But they don't, they're still passed on 75% of the time. Unless there is some selective force against them, the ratio is preserved.

>>	does not want to work Fri Jan 28 00:35:45 2011 No.2429086 its only mean if you want it to happen

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:35:45 2011 No.2429090 >>2429078 Sorry, the unlikely happens rarely. But it still can happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:35:45 2011 No.2429093 >>2429084 No, it's not. Your misunderstanding of biology, statistics and probability are appalling. How old are you? Be honest.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:36:45 2011 No.2429095 >>2429075 Yes, it becomes LESS and LESS but NEVER ZERO. This is why the nazis couldn't go through with the "stupid gene" because even they figured it out. Its the same as a line approaching zero but never reaching it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:36:45 2011 No.2429100

>>2429061

Doesn't matter. Blonde is a desireable trait, meaning a certain segment of the population is going to be predisposed to pair in such a way as to increase the likleyhook of offspring presenting the trait.

People don't always just fuck randomly, and with abortions mistaken offspring of bad pairings are eliminated early.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:38:45 2011 No.2429113 >>2429100 Even if being blond was completely undesirable, there would still be tons of carriers, ensuring that the next generation will always have blonds.

>>	OPisafag Fri Jan 28 00:38:45 2011 No.2429114 >>2429086 >>2429084 If you have lower birthrates and higher dieoff of young offspring the amount of offspring with YY and Yy die at a rate proportional to yy, that is, 1 YY for every yy and two Yy for every yy. So no, you still don't lose the yy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:39:45 2011 No.2429117 >>2429093 >>2429093 He has a point. Populations that trend "racial purity" and get anal over light-pigmentations are more likely to die out of inbreeding and passing ressecive inherited diseazes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:39:45 2011 No.2429119 reported for this being /new/fag shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:39:45 2011 No.2429127 >>2429117 How does that in any way validate his misunderstanding of genetic?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:42:45 2011 No.2429142 File: 58 KB, 372x426, gohan2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2429127 It doesn't. I was just sayan'. Btw. Does the super-powerful half-sayan concept follow Mendellian principles?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:42:59 2011 No.2429136 >>2429127 >implying I misunderstand genetics. Time and time again I had to point out to you nitwits that it the YY is constantly selected for the y disappear from the genepool. Yes this is unlikely, but it could happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:43:45 2011 No.2429147 >>2429127 >implying I misunderstand genetics. Time and time again I had to point out to you nitwits that if YY is constantly the offspring then the y disappears from the genepool. Yes this is unlikely, but it could happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:44:45 2011 No.2429150 >>2429136 The carriers are still there. The gene is still passed on. What don't you understand?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:45:45 2011 No.2429156 >>2429150 y carrier are there if there are only YY, nice try, looks like you don't understand genetics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:46:45 2011 No.2429169 >>2429156 ...but there aren't only YY. Look at the chart again. 75% of the offspring have the recessive trait.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:47:45 2011 No.2429175 >>2429169 Yes because every parent has 4 kids. It's 75% chance. Chance. Chance. There is no guarantee that 3/4 offspring will all have a y.

OPisafag Fri Jan 28 00:48:45 2011 No.2429178

>>2429136

THAT'S KNOWN AS SELECTION, DUMBASS.

IF A TRAIT IMPACTS FITNESS THEN YES, ITS GOING TO DIMINISH IN THE POPULATION. YOU DON'T USE A PUNDETTE SQUARE TO SHOW THAT. A PUNDETTE SQUARE IS USED AS A SIMPLE ILLUSTRATIVE DEVICE TO SHOW ALLELIC PRESERVATION AND PHENOTYPE/GENOTYPE EXPRESSION IN THE OFFSPRING OF TWO ADULTS OF KNOWN ZYGOSITY. ITS NOT USED TO DEMONSTRATE FITNESS CURVES, -THATS WHAT FITNESS CURVES ARE FOR. IN FACT, IT OFTEN RELIES ON THE TRAITS BEING NEUTRAL AND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT AND LETHAL TRAITS MAKES IT A USELESS MODEL.

GAWWWWDDDAMMMMNNN

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:49:45 2011 No.2429180 >>2429175 >Yes because every parent has 4 kids. NO. Each square is 25% of the offspring OF ALL CROSSES OF THOSE GENOTYPES.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:49:45 2011 No.2429181 this thread is slightly more interesting than i thought it would be.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:50:45 2011 No.2429190 >>2429180 What part of probability don't you understand?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:52:45 2011 No.2429199

>>2429190
That's not how probability works. It's possible for every oxygen atom in a room to concentrate in one corner, suffocating everyone. How often does that happen?
Look, there's no reasoning with you. Read the snopes link, it's dumbed down enough that even you can understand it.

>>	OPisafag Fri Jan 28 00:54:45 2011 No.2429206 >>2429190 >Hurr durr I think that any mating pair will have 4 and only 4 offspring.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:54:45 2011 No.2429209 >>2429199 The snopes link is not promising, there was no no proof that blondes won't go extinct just a little rebuttal at the bottom with hardly an explanation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:54:45 2011 No.2429212 For all intents and purposes human genes work through 2*2 punnet squares if they're of similar races Lets just leave it at that

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:56:45 2011 No.2429216 >>2429206 HURR DURR I didn't even imply that, And you, HURP DURP have trouble with reading comprehension.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 00:58:45 2011 No.2429223

>>2429209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearing_blonde_gene
There's an entire wikipedia page about what a dumbass you are.
>The extinction claim is based on a misinterpretation of recessiveness in genetics. However unless blondness is positively selected against, it cannot become extinct, and the blond gene, or alleles for the trait cannot disappear by simple breeding

>>	OPisafag Fri Jan 28 00:58:45 2011 No.2429224 >>2429216 Anyone who thinks probability is on their side for dictating that recessive traits -or blondes- will go extinct either has a huge head full of fail in either genetics or statistics. Your pick.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:00:45 2011 No.2429232 >>2429223 Yeah that's the proof in the pudding, lol no. Until I see a formal whitepaper I'm not convinced.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:02:45 2011 No.2429235

Jesus, white supremacists have no fucking idea about genetics
Big fucking surprise
I'll explain it one last time: If a trait has neither favorable nor detrimental impact on the individual it WILL NOT decrease in frequency in the gene pool, because there's no selective pressure acting on it. It is quite possible that less blonds will exist some time in the future, but the blond trait can never be "extinct"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:03:45 2011 No.2429238 >>2429224 I never said that probability was on my side, I stated time and time again this is unlikely in the near future. But as breeding continues we may not see and blonde chicks in the distant future.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:03:45 2011 No.2429240 >Until I see a formal whitepaper I'm not convinced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg_principle There's a lot of whitepapers on that shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:04:45 2011 No.2429243 >the World Health Organization, or other experts, published a report claiming that people with blond hair "will become extinct by 2202." >2202 Oh no. What will happen to my great-great-great-great grandchildren!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:04:45 2011 No.2429245 >>2429235 >can never be extinct. If the offspring all have two dominant alleles where does the recessive allele go?

OPisafag Fri Jan 28 01:04:45 2011 No.2429246

>>2429232
>Implying it's hard to write a formal white paper on the subject
>Implying a serious geneticist will actually give a shit about writing something like that to begin with, given that this is argument is based against the most trivial genetics shit that your typical bio student will learn in an intro genetics class.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:07:45 2011 No.2429254

>>2429240
>Hardy–Weinberg law states that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant—that is, they are in equilibrium—from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, "overlapping generations", random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these "disturbing influences" are always in effect. That is, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is impossible in nature.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:10:45 2011 No.2429263 guys, you're missing the best arguement of all for racial genocide against black people, more friend chicken and waffles for everyone else, AND we can use all the space they took up for something useful, like a land fill.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:11:45 2011 No.2429264 /new/'s cancerous racism is spreading quicker than an oil spill. Ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:11:45 2011 No.2429269 >>2429263 Who will make the chicken and waffles? Whites? I don't want to live in that world.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:12:45 2011 No.2429274 >>2429263 >implying the government can't put eviction notices on the ghetto whenever it wants They're going to have to eat chicken where they're told to

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:13:45 2011 No.2429276 racism is against site rules. I'm certain st0rmfags don't care, but reported anyways.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:14:45 2011 No.2429283 >billion people post in /new/ thread >nothing has changed

>>	OilwhatOil? !tkJh0c3Ss2 Fri Jan 28 01:14:45 2011 No.2429285 >>2429264 >quicker than an oil spill no, its not actually. I can graph that if you like. It's a matter of exponential expansion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:16:45 2011 No.2429296 If this thread was about black people possibly going extinct no one would call it racist. ITT: Liberal Double Standard at its finest.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:19:45 2011 No.2429317 >>2429296 nobody would care either way

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:22:45 2011 No.2429330 >>2429296 If you substitute "black" for "white" in OP's post the thread would be called racist far faster and you know it. you are the reason your old board is gone. fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:22:45 2011 No.2429333 >>2429269 dude, we'll get the illegal immigrants to do it in chicken and waffle manufacturing camps.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:25:11 2011 No.2429351 >>2429330 Why because people like you can't handle a simple fact of life such as race? Also there was nothing racist about this post except for people insulting white Americans by calling them rednecks.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:26:45 2011 No.2429363 >>2429330 Why because people like you can't handle a simple fact of life such as race? Also there was nothing racist about this thread except for people insulting white Americans by calling them rednecks.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:26:45 2011 No.2429364 >>2429330 It would probably go like this >black people will become extinct in 200 years >Okay

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:27:45 2011 No.2429370 >>2429363 >>Also there was nothing racist about this thread It fucking started out racist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:29:45 2011 No.2429385 >>2429370 That's because liberals find all white people racist. And any notion of white trait preservation is racist to them too. It was merely poking fun at the fact that there was no mention of racial supremacy required for racism. And there wasn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:31:45 2011 No.2429394 >>2429370 Started out racist? Where? Show me the first racist statement.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:32:45 2011 No.2429400

OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP
=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=F
AG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG
=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG=O
P=FAG=OP=FAG=OP=FAG

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:33:45 2011 No.2429404 File: 25 KB, 200x200, kimiko12.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm gone for an hour or two and look at what you guys do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:36:45 2011 No.2429422 >>2429330 >Ctrl+f white >First hit after OP's post

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:37:45 2011 No.2429426 File: 141 KB, 360x598, troll.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] mfw 128 posts. Why.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:37:45 2011 No.2429430

>>2429394
For example, miscegenation is a pretty loaded word. It's difficult to give hard facts on how words are used, but when someone uses "miscegenation" it usually means they don't approve of it. Implying that interracial parentage is a bad thing would further imply that you think people should discriminate who they breed with on the basis of race (hence, racism).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:39:45 2011 No.2429442 >>2428744 Giddahdahere, /new/ refugee, and take your cartoons witchyoo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:40:45 2011 No.2429449 >>2429430 Nope.jpeg That was a racialist statement. Racism implies supremacy, there was no mention of which race is superior until people stared throwing the word white supremacist around without understanding the definition.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:41:45 2011 No.2429454 >>2428839 Uh-oh... /sci/ shows up to kick some ignorant /new/ ass...

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:42:45 2011 No.2429465 Guys Hey guys Guys? Guys Hitler had BROWN hair, so clearly having brown hair is racist, and as such an undesirable trait. I win.

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:44:45 2011 No.2429475

>>2429449
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
>2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:47:45 2011 No.2429492

>>2429475
Discrimination
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Again, not racism. I never said blonds were superior or inferior.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:49:45 2011 No.2429498 >>2429404 lol @ my 404 Not if only this thread could 404. >:l

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:51:45 2011 No.2429510 >>2429498 I can do that for you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:51:45 2011 No.2429512 >>2429510 DO EEEET!!!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:51:45 2011 No.2429516 since when did /sci/ turn into /new/2?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:53:45 2011 No.2429524 Name a blonde-haired nobel prize-winning physicist. You can't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:54:45 2011 No.2429529 >>2429516 Since /new/1 got shut down

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:55:45 2011 No.2429536 >>2429512 OK, but only if people admit that there is a liberal hypocrisy as depicted in the OP pic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:57:45 2011 No.2429541 >>2429524 Wasn't Alfred Nobel himself blond?

Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:58:19 2011 No.2429551

>>2429536
Of course there is. I'm a liberal who hangs out with liberals. We have our own biases, though in general we're aware of many of them.

It's all about point of view. Your's isn't wrong, it just allows for less diversity, and counterintuitive as it may seem, it's best to limit the diversity of those who seek to limit diversity.

now delete your fucking shit thread and go to /b/. Come back when you have some science for us.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 28 01:58:57 2011 No.2429550 >>2429536 Black nationalism is racism. White nationalism is racism. ANY type of racism is bad for the world. OP's pic is a strawman, and a misrepresentation of the left by wingnuts who want to feel persecuted.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math