/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6287397]

would reproducing with a different race be more beneficial? Like white-asian, black-persian, just stuff like that? Would there be less chance of negative gene combinations? Though Ive also heard that there are more differences within races than between them. But mixed couples always seem to have better looking offspring...

[Anonymous No.6287490]

bump

[Anonymous No.6287494]

>reproducing

Why are you talking about things you are never gonna experience?

[Anonymous No.6287498]

the poor or mentally ill should not reproduce.

[Anonymous No.6287500]

>>6287498
lol @ dat irony

[Anonymous No.6287503]

>>6287397

no. it actually causes many health issues for the progeny. and IQ is usually lower as well.

[Anonymous No.6287505]

>>6287503
>IQ

Hahaha, do you also believe in horoscopes?

[Anonymous No.6287519]

>>6287505
IQ is very real.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

[Anonymous No.6287521]

>>6287498
>the poor or mentally ill should not reproduce.
i agree with mentally ill,but why poor?

[Anonymous No.6287524]

>>6287503
>no. it actually causes many health issues for the progeny.

Sources? I'm curious as to why this would be the case.

[Anonymous No.6287536]

>>6287524
http://sociobiologicalmusings.blog
spot.com/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html

[Anonymous No.6287548]

>>6287536
This seems like incredibly bogus pseudoscience. The claim is that due to not sharing as many genes with their parents, the offspring have decreased genetic fitness, yet the article goes on to explain why that would be the case.

That's not even to forget the big assumption that mixed-race offspring are not as related to their parents are same-race offspring.

Also, I doubt the credibility of a mother writing this article on blogspot.

Please, post something more official that actually backs their claims up with facts/statistics.

[Anonymous No.6287554]

>>6287548
>idiot who attacks the site hoster of the blog

oh please. go check the references and do some research on Medline. you're just pissed because it conflicts with your indoctrination.

[Anonymous No.6287573]

>>6287536

>giving a blog as a source

Fucking laughable

[Anonymous No.6287655]

how does that whole lack of fitness argument even make sense? Isn't mixing and matching genes one of the best things you can do?

[Anonymous No.6287671]

>>6287519
>quoting literature that's 20 years old
ishiggydiggydo

[Anonymous No.6287674]

inbreeding depression vs outbreeding depression

They say that heterosis is strongest in first-gen hybrids and declines over further generations, so theoretically it's best to maintain stable populations of purebred stock in order to keep producing superior hybrids

[Anonymous No.6287678]

>>6287554
Do you even science?

A blog is not credible evidence. If it's the source material she used that you're referring to, cite that, and explain why it supports your claims. Until then you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.6287708]

>>6287397
Yes it would actually, I've been shown a few studies which posit that interracial breeding is actually beneficial to the offspring as it provides a wider breadth of genetic experience to draw from which is suspected to lead to more resilient organisms

[Anonymous No.6287742]

>>6287674
but why would a purebred stock be better when living conditions are constantly changing? Wouldnt you want to expand the gene pool incase some event like disease or something in which case having a wide variety of genes would possibly be more beneficial than a smaller gene pool pure bred?

[Anonymous No.6288036]

>>6287742
Yeees yeees, mix miiix!

No. Clearly there are social factors among all the genetic factors not being taken into consideration that directly contribute to upbringing, and thus cognitive ability.

[Anonymous No.6288040]

depends on the individual;

there's far greater genetic difference within races than between.

[Anonymous No.6288043]

>black-persian

you mean like Bandar Abbas?

[Anonymous No.6288046]

>>6288036
hereditary =/= genetic
there's a gradient of epigenetic factors between gene and phenotype that influence most every trait, even traits like height that are considered most heritable.

[Anonymous No.6288053]

>ITT: bait

/pol/ pls go

[Anonymous No.6288067]

>>6288046
People are shaped by their surroundings. The kind of people who raise them, the kind of food they cook. The languages they speak. All these things form an archetypal construct within individuals. The genes may otherwise be a great combination. But if the surrounding aren't good, it's almost like you did nothing at all.

This applies to children feeling out of place racially or socially in different family structures. Genes don't dictate everything is all I'm saying. They may even be suppressed of their potential by outside factors.

And no, mixed couples don't have better looking anything. That's all subjective.

[Anonymous No.6288073]

>>6287521
They cannot support their young economically and are often not educated enough to handle a family correctly.

[Anonymous No.6288074]

Not really. Race is poorly defined as a biological term, and as long as you aren't reproducing within your immediate family your child is just as likely to inherit bad genes.

[Anonymous No.6288082]

Depends on which traits you want to inherit. As there are positive traits associated with certain races, there are also negative ones. I don't want my kids to inherit a black person's tendency to physical aggression, for example.

[Anonymous No.6288096]

>>6287554
He's not really attacking or insulting the owner of the blog, he's saying that blogs themselves aren't very credible, which is something I hear actual scientists say

[Anonymous No.6288105]

>>6287397

>this thread again

either the same people are posting or 4chan is on the receiving end of a stream of 15 years old that have just discovered IQ and race copypasta.

[Anonymous No.6288119]

>>6287655
You can just as easily end up with the worst of both worlds, "hybrid vigour" is pseudo science

[Anonymous No.6288143]

>>6287397
Except when they end up looking like utter shit. Which is most of the time.

[Anonymous No.6288147]

>>6287397
It depends.
It depends largely on how you define better and your preference between specialization and generalization. Too much of anything is often bad.

But the short answer is under the current conditions I say yes race mixing is good.

It is important to note we are dealing with two types of gene pools here, local ones and the global one.

Any gene pool becoming too homogeneous can lead to it discarding genes that hurt the individual, but could prove important for the population should some unexpected need for those discarded genes arise. If taken to the extremes which happens over time you also get inbreeding and reduced genetic variations that are needed for other things.

Separating the global gene pool into local ones just reduces the size of the pool being referenced. The threat of too much homogeneity is still there, amplified by the smaller pool size but offset by local optimization which can be a good thing in moderation.

So if you take a gene pool and split it, the local pools will gradually become optimized for there local environments. But if one waits even longer those gains get offset by a number of things which we could summarize as over optimization. Reuniting the local pools into a global one will often reverse it as they slowly lose the over optimization, then the optimization and then start optimizing for the new norm followed by over optimizing just at a slower rate given the larger gene pool.

Considering how much mastery we have over our environment and how segregated our gene pools have been. I would assume we are at a stage where mixing local pools back into a global one would be beneficial for both the individual and the species. At some point these conditions will change and segregation will be more valued, but for now genetic mixing is good. (excluding social stigmas which is another matter)

Ideally some type of cycle would form which maintains the properties you want without too much sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.6288187]

op here not trolling and I hate pol. I just got curious because a lot of mixed people are better looking than just white or black or asian or whatever. So I was wondering, besides attractiveness, if mixed breeding was actually more beneficial.

[Anonymous No.6288214]

>>6287397
1) Race isn't a different thing
2) natural selection isn't guided like that you fucking idiot
3) it's a crapshoot no matter what you do, but sure there are cases where more random is better than less random. Either way your decision should be random otherwise it violates the premise of the system.