Implying diversity isn't an evolutionary safeguard against genetic degeneracy

>Implying diversity isn't an evolutionary safeguard against genetic degeneracy
try again white supremacists

Other urls found in this thread:

translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://europasoberana.blogspot.com/2013/05/homosexualidad-en-la-antigua-grecia-el.html&prev=search
youtube.com/watch?v=6P40_kd-mS8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I live under your bed and i'll come for your ass tonight if you fall for this bait

I'm not a white supremacist, Slavs are white and are literally animals
I'm an Anglo supremacist Anglos are the only true humans on this planet

How is my assertion anything but true?

...

lol

Aristotle was pretty dumb desu. Ancient Greek philosophers almost always were weirdly intuitive (eg the atom), but not him. History and science just proves him wrong time and time again. Source: check flag

Greek philosophers are pagans, idolatrous, homosexual sodomites and should be ignored nothing they say is of value or is common sense any simpleton could figure it out, look at picture, Joe in Medicine Hat knows this, you don't need to be a philosopher

I will gladly provide some historic images for context in support of this fact.

The face of genetic safeguarding

What about japanese people? They are intelligent as fuck and less violent than Anglos even.

I suppose you want your grandchildren to look like this?

Let us escape the way of the pug! Let us be proud wolves

No, they have a different skeletal structure from us and are a different species like a caveman Anglos are the descendants of Adam and the true humans, there are many humanoid creatures like Cavemen, Gorillas and Niggers but they aren't true humans

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have this beautiful mutt rathen than a pure-bred chihuahua

Forgot pic

Those "pagans" h ave achieved more than your nation shall ever achieve leaf

Its way to clean for a rat mestizo to live under my bed.

Aristotle was a dumbass. Probably why Christcucks like him so much.
Democritus and Epicurus were the empirical minded greek philosophers who argued that atoms existed.
Epicurus was right about almost everything.
Epicurus
Not a pagan (gods don't exist).
Greeks being faggots is a myth. translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://europasoberana.blogspot.com/2013/05/homosexualidad-en-la-antigua-grecia-el.html&prev=search

>pure
>chihuahua
Ok

Πατριkιο γουστο

Epicureans recommended sun and mun worship

t. jews

*moon

How is this a deterrent?

Better than imaginary dad in the sky worship, at least the sun the moon actually give us life

Canada is the greatest country in the world, the only real countries on this planet are Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

This is a picture of a wolf-dog mutt

What about Luxembourg?

Riddle me this shill. How many individuals are required in a population to keep it genetically diverse and immune from genetic degeneracy? There is an actual known number, since we have plenty of small population, nigh identical animals to examine (e.g. Cheetahs). Let's see if you can actually give a quantitative answer!

They're not a country they're a Duchy

This assumes unity has to be about ethnicity or race. Unity should be about systems. Aristotle didn't know there was such a thing as a human genome.

Use your today thinker to come up with better arguments.

The only acceptable race mixing
Well said. I was just responding to the user who said the epicureans did not believe in the gods

Greeks are better than you

I've heard others with your views spout specific numbers. I don't know, 5000? But you know what the trouble with this is? It's a nuanced number that you need to arrive to theoretically to keep your pre-scientific beliefs aloft in the face of evidence. First it was that one gene-pool is better than the rest, now what? It's like "OK I contend you need diversity but you can keep it at a minimum and still not degenerate!" That's not the point. The point is that genetic mixing is advantageous.

And just to demonstrate how laughable your assestions are: You believe that one, or few gene-pools are superior to others. Would you happen to be part of said gene-pool(s)? Well then, excuse me if I think your reasoning is... fishy.

Better pop a few viagra.

The biggest race riot in Canadian history was targeted towards Greeks, they're brown skinned animals

...

>be 103 IQ population
>prevent "degradation" by breeding with 80 IQ population

Holds up.

How much diversity do you need to prevent inbreeding? You idiots think there's some absolute positive correlation.

At what point does it stop to matter?

>contend
meant concede

You require 500 people to prevent genetic degradation. Try again...

...

Also, how is mixing genetic inferiority into the gene pool meant to prevent genetic degeneracy?

Not if they're all genetically similar

>diversity
Diversity isn't being an inbred retard for 40,000 years, then breeding with a European.

Oh? I said nothing about any of that in my post, now did I? If you are done wasting your time and energy stuffing strawmen and then doing meaningless mental gymnastics around said strawmen as if they were angry gods about to strike you down if you don't appease them with unscientific, virtue signalling bafoonery, we can get back to the topic at had: there is a minimal number that assured genetic stability, no amount of "diversity" improves or helps a population beyond this point. So, everything you said is meaningless. "Diversity" is the inevitable formation of discrete subpopulations and subspecies. The rates of total genetic diseases and deficiencies stay the same in those populations above the minimal number and overall population as a whole.

5 male models vs an ugly guy? How desperate.. Do you really think such tactics even constitute an argument?

Let me guess, your own genes are superior and those of the immigrants in your immideate vicinity are inferior? Yeah, not biased or suspect at all.

...

I'm picking up some serious insecurity here OP

I like how you accuse me of assuming your position, before saying exactly what I "assumed". For a reply, go back to my post. Also, something to think about: that "mimimal number" of people, what is their ethnic background? Are they all white? Are they all of the same ethnicity? Hey, maybe they're all in the same family, while we're at it. So, you can see, I need more clarification than meaningless claims about numbers that have been no doubt been cooked up by some desperate crackpot. How about a source?

Wrong! Works the same if they are genetically similar or even if they are genetic clones. See cheetahs and the clonal lizard species Leiolepis ngovantrii for only a few of many examples. All you need is a population above the minimal number, no matter how identical or not, so there are sufficient recombination or mutation events availabe.

>argument
This is an image board, so that is 1-0 to me faggot.

>implying dysgenics isn't genetic warfare

Well depends who you're talking about. Are we talking about Europeans immigrating to other European countries? Because that shouldn't be an issue.

Really? Go back and read your own post. It is a joke of self indulgent strawmannery and assumptions. I never said anything about ethnicities. All I ever said is a question about the known quantitative number required to prevent genetic degeneration and preserve genetic diversity. If it is all a single family, it is a ok, as long as that number is met. Same for if it is all _the exact same person_. Now, I want you to go look up why that is, so you can finally learn something about genes, species, genetic drift, and how subspecies are formed which is the true source of diversity.

Yes it is, I don't know about you but I don't want Pierre the republican or Hans the muhammedan moving to my country and marrying my daughter.

Don't you have something better to do besides bait nazi weebs?

Well that makes things easier. Let's assume they're clones. What if they have the same predisposition to a specific disorder, eg they are lactose intollerant? And before you accuse me of picking specific situations, remember that how genes express themselves is exceedingly complex in its correlations (for example it seems that in dogs the gene that decreases alertness around danger - so related to liking humans - is related to many morphological characteristics, eg snout and tail formation). So it's entirely possible that our clones have all sorts of inter-related peculiarities, even if you forego something as obvious as lactose intolerence.

Also, is the rate of mutations not dependand upon variance? Some scientific back up to the 500 number would be appreciated

mmm yeah I suppose, Germany is certainly a failed culture.

Race mixing is degenerate, Anglos should stick to Anglos, French should stick to French and Teutons should stick to teotons. Foreign invaders destroyed this country, when Canada was 90% Anglo we were an amazing country we had no gun laws except that foreigners aren't allowed to own guns, you have to be 16 to buy a gun, race mixing was illegal, non whites couldnt vote, women were legally a mans property, schools were segregated, it was even illegal for a white woman to work for a non white employer!
Then after the war we took European refugees and look at what happened to us now all it took was 20 years after the war to end for us to be completely destroyed

youtube.com/watch?v=6P40_kd-mS8

If those brainlets read some actual molecular biology and genetics they wouldnt make dump "am i white /pol?" threads all the time. In eucaryots most of DNA is non coding and can affect gene expression hundrend of thousands bases ahead. Also, apart from DNA there is the epigenetic control of DNA translation, that can be inherited as acetylation/methylation and histone placement. There is so much to inheritance that is environmental dependant, that "hey how percent im anglo , pol" from a leaf or aussie is such a vain question

Not really, I make money sitting on my ass so... don't mistake though, I believe in what I say

You are actually correct, but the Problem is what you mean by "Diversity".

If it is "bring brown people in", then you are just fucking dumb, if it is "allow for a diverse range of opinions in society", then you are correct.

>try again white supremacists
There are no white supremacists.

Nope. Genetic drift is a fixed quantity for any population, unless in a high radiation/mutagen or highly selective environment.

What you have yet to learn is that even clones gave drift and genetic flux. The real clonal species out there do just fine as long as their population meets the threshold, as there is enough constant flux that if lactose intolerance became an issue, you would soon find clones that were lactose tolerate and who would quickly replace the intolerant subset where it is relevant.

You also have the fatally flawed idea that populations (above the genetic diversity threshold) can have better genes than others. They don't. All there at there is is the flux. The genes now are good for the now, and as long as there is enough flux in the population, even clonal, they will become good for the future now. That is how the continuity of life works. There is no "diversity" in the genetic sense above the minimum, and no benefit to that false idol.

Exactly true. We are what we are right now as a rolling average product of our genetic line only a couple generations back interacting with our environment. Some traits persist for a long time as a way of differentiating and identifying compatible members of a population, however--and that is important to factor in.

My biggest gripe with what you said is that viewing "white" or "anglo" or whatever as a unified thing is complete nonsense. How genes propagate is, as you pointed out, a very complicated process with a bunch of random variables. If you take your lineage back thtough time, you're not going to find specific
comprehensive genetic traits. You're going to find a chain of constantly changing sets of variables. Where is the "purity" in that? Any point of reference is just arbitrary.

I feel like I'm learning, thanks. Indulge me, if you please:

Let's take an inter-racial couple vs a non-mixed couple. Let's say, French and Japanese for the first couple and just French for the second.

Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that French people are more prone to lactose intolerance. Would the first couple's child not have a better chance of foregoing said intolerance?

I did not say the word purity at all.

There are some white supremacists where I'm at

Oh yeah I know, I wasn't talking specifically about you. I did not exactly mean purity myself, either - I'm just taking the logic of "I'm 90% white 10% chreokee hurrdurr" to its extreme.

This user s based. A procaryotic example: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (a pathogen microorganism) can develop resistance to formerly sensitive
antibiotic taken in hospital setting merely in a week or two. Genetic flux and drift is really a thing.

And by the way, I am entirely aware that there is genetic drifting in clones.

Statistically yes. But if in a low lactose environment for some generations, noone can tell. Use it or lose it is the genetics modus operandi in some big extend.

There is no "purity" in a distant lineage. We are defined by what we are as individuals and a group in the right now. Americans are Americans, and Greeks are Greeks. But you can conquer and wipe out a sub group by invading it with another. If we flood Greece with Ugandans and stop Greek propagation, Greeks go extinct and all you would have are Ugandans in the area Greeks once existed but no longer. So the real question is, does group have every right to protect itself and the continuity of its shared propagation in the here and now?Since "diversity" doesn't exist above the genetic threshold, you have instead competing subgroups on different genetic drift trajectories due to their different environments or internal selective pressures (such as sexual selection).

So what would you choose? Force groups to mix so you wipe out some in favor of others based on what? Or allow groups to develop and grow as they desire into the future, when they form autonomous self governing units (e.g. nations)?

A people inhabiting an area is a long history of genetic evolution in that environment. I think that is valuable to preserve, thats the reason that endangered species are protected too.

Depends on the mode of inheritance and frequency of the gene. For instance, Japanese populations have unique genetic diseases of their own. By having an inter-racial child, the chance the child is lactose intolerant may go down, but the chance they are vulnerable to methylmercury (a natural and industrial poison in our environments) and get brain disorders may go up. So in the end, the over all chance of _some genetic disorder_ remains the same.

Of course, we are taking a high level population look at this, not specific heredity.

Or to put it in another way: Every nation is a story, and stories are a good thing.

i agree with you completely. You've got a really good grasp of the bigger picture.

Romans were mostly Nords and Greeks because they were the ones who didn't die in war.

There is a not-so-fine line between genocide and racial mixing. A lot of people seem to miss this fact.

Also, I do believe the issue currently is not forced mixing (as no one is doing that), rather forced prevention of mixing. So I agree, let groups behave as they do naturally. Again, I see a warped linkage to nations. What the fuck do nations have to do with gene expression? If anything, drawing imaginary lines and preventing people from crossing them goes against the concept of "let the groups behave freely". Unless you meant one group, in the expense of others, of course.

You guys need some space?

A lot of races like the anglos, saxxons, celts, vikings, etc are already truly mixed anyway. In fact I'd go for far as to say you won't find a pure anglos or saxxon these days.

But here is the really fun thing. You put forth a good concrete idea we can examine about groups being able to freely mix and nations preventing that. Well, we know we don't need mixing after the minimal population level, so there is no actual biological imperative or reason for it at the genetic level when we talk about the hugely abundant human populations. And so, we come to the zinger: what do animals in nature do? Do they draw up boarders, or mix freely among subgroups? Well, to cut to the chase, they draw up boarders. A herd of elephants or zebras or grey squirrels or chimps remains tight knit against outside groups. Mixing with other groups is kept at a low rate, while the majority of mixing happens _within_ group. That is the way of nature. Even microscopic creatures like Volvox or Daphnia follow this rule, though it breaks down the closer to clonal one gets, and doesn't seem to exist much for clonal groups unless they have been separated long enough to drift sufficiently.

So, the more identical genrically, the more mixing is done between groups. The less identical, the harder mixing is between groups, and even pods of dolphins have discrete "group/non-group" boarders. Tribalism is a natural extension of this.

Humans are unique as we somehow can have very large groups that take on an overarching identity (nations), even though such scale doesn't exist in nature outside of ants and honey bees.

But I must disagree with when you say there is no forced mixing going on. Taking in refugees as a governmental program beyond normal immigration _is_ forced mixing for which the endemic population is not prepared for. Particularly at the absurd levels that places like Germany and Sweden have done, where the entire native population at young ages is now dwarfed by the refugee population brought in by their governments. That is population replacement and group genocide, and not by the populations natural rate of choosing--but a complete system shock.

Keep it up guys, great thread

Aaaaaaand, we see how the Irish got colonized by those Anglos.

This argument that animals do it and so therefore so much humans is deeply flawed. First of all, I'm pretty sure there's an animal that can prove literally anyone's favorite theory, especially when it comes to breeding. Nature is just so varied on that. But even if we were the only thing in the universe to act a certain way, I say so what? More power to humans.

As for immigration, unless you contend that immigrants freely rape women, it does not have any forceful impact on who people choose to mate with. It does give them more options, though.

>much
must*

I quoted the wrong post... I meant

Also, I suspect you've never been to either Sweden or Germany.

You don't have to be white to hate diversity
in fact, most whites LOVE diversity

He's not wrong on that one. It has been proven that people agree with and like people similar to them than the opposite. They also tend to help their kind in a case of emergency instead of everyone else.
It's instict, inherent. Self-preservation of your pact. Nothing wrong with it

My mistake, substitute "white" with whatever color you wish, or none - my point is against "supremacy"

Also, I can present an example to counter your argument: me. I want to meet people that are different to me, similar people bore me after a while, but I don't have the funds to travel. Why should I be deprived this fortuitous hypothetical meeting because of needless fears?

Idk about supremacy. It was different in the old times, dunno how aggressive military expansion was translate back then (not being sarcastic, we also had slaves. Plenty of diversity in their factions kek)

>an example to counter your argument: me
You alone aren't enough, hon. Picrel

>was translate
was translated

CRISPR-Cas9 will change everything

First of all, I've seen all sorts of graphs representing Greece's "opinion" which I find rather dubious (a large percentage of people "satisfied with their income" among countries in Europe comes to mind). How large was the sample? What was the age group? I'm pretty sure that there's sentiment similar to ming among Greeks, at least young people. And in any case, I'd hardly call Greece ideal proof for generalizations like >It has been proven that people agree with and like people similar to them than the opposite.

Implying there isnt tons of diversity in Europe alone. Don't need shitskins.

>ming
mind

I'm sorry esteemed ancestors, I can't spell.

>mind
mine*

lol