Pathetic genetics of whites

So Pol, let's get this straight.

White + Black = Black
White + Brown = Brown
White + Asian = Asian

Shall we all just agree that the White race is just a flimsy, weak and pathetic race genetically, destined to be bred out by literally any other race?

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/black_britons_01.shtml
medicinenet.com/huntington_disease/page2.htm
web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/the-inheritance-of-huntingtons-disease-text-and-audio/#are-my-children-at-risk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

should brits even be considered human/white?

>brits
>white

They're as African as it gets

bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/black_britons_01.shtml

>germans
>white

If we look at it very objectively, there is no selective genetic advantage to being whites. If whites were indeed superior, genetics would have evolved to be superior for whites. On an average, the most dominant traits are always chosen by evolution, which is the most objective selector in nature. It just shows that White traits are the most recessive traits designed to be wiped out.

People have surgery/bleach their own skin to look white.

>germany

Every time.
And of course you people never specify what being "white" actually entails, biologically. If only blonde hair + blue eyes and FFFFFF skin makes you "white", was the Pax Romana the greatest accomplishment of niggers? Think for a minute, go damn

Sage

My uncle has a Vietnamese wife. And maybe our genes are just really strong or something, but their daughter unmistakably looks Danish, with no hints of her Vietnamese mother at all.

>white
>white

Fair point. Pax romana was by Mediterraneans, which are not the Sup Forums aryan stereotype, but somewhat of a mixed race between browns and whites, although tilting more toward the white end of the spectrum.
I'm not talking about human achievements, which can be highly subjective. I'm talking about genetics and breeding, which is the most objective measure of genetic superiority.
The simple fact is that any other race when bred with whites leads to a non white overwhelmingly, with extremely few counter examples.

Genetically speaking "dominant" and "recessive" are not value-judgements. Huntingtons disease and Marfans syndrome, both hideous genetic disorders, are "dominant", but that doesn't make them "good".

You have a shitty understanding of genetics.İn an european setting those mixed people are in a disadvantage.Whites are survivors of ice ages food is scarce and hard to get so whites are organized and cunning.Any mixture endangers that.

For instance turks are steppe people that travel a lot.Thus organized yet short tempered due to muggers.

They are not dominant disorders. There is a 50% chance if inheriting Huntingtons, for example. If 50% of black-white babies were white, then race equality would be a thing. But the fact that overwhelming majority are blacks shows the weakness of White traits.

What? Huntingtons is absolutely autosomal dominant. You don't know what you're talking about.
>The impact of a gene depends partly on whether it is dominant or recessive. If a gene is dominant, then only one of the paired chromosomes is required to produce its called-for effect. If the gene is recessive, both parents must provide chromosomal copies for the trait to be present. HD is called an autosomal dominant disorder because only one copy of the defective gene, inherited from one parent, is necessary to produce the disease.
medicinenet.com/huntington_disease/page2.htm

Did you fail highschool biology?

And jews and arabs are people of the desert .food is scarce.and you dont hunt for it. you trade for it or talk for it.So jews and arabs sleezebags.

in niggerlands food is plenty and easy to get, meaning people have to compete with each other for it,thus nigger behaviour.

>White + Black = Black
>White + Brown = Brown
>White + Asian = Asian
What are you going on about Ahmed?

...

>live action remake when?

the most pure and rare genes are obviously recessive. a drop of shit will stain a barrel of milk

Anglo + anything is the most subhuman

read what i wrote, retard.
Chance of inheriting it is 50% you moron, irrespective of whether the gene is passed on or not. You can be a carrier and not have Huntingtons.

Lmao. He's talking about the inheritance pattern.

>You can be a carrier and not have Huntingtons.

Incorrect. This is only true for women with an X-linked dominant gene. Huntington gene is on chromosome 4.

web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/the-inheritance-of-huntingtons-disease-text-and-audio/#are-my-children-at-risk

here you go.
>The child inherits one allele from each parent. The parent without HD has two non-HD alleles, so the allele from this parent will be non-HD regardless of which one is inherited. The parent with HD has one non-HD allele and HD allele. There is an equal probability of passing either of these alleles to the child. Thus the child has a 50% chance of getting the non-HD allele and a 50% chance of getting the HD allele. Since the chance of getting an HD allele is one in two, the child has a 50% chance overall of inheriting the disease.

But you still have no comprehension that dominance =! "good", it doesn't even relate directly to an organism or population's evolutionary fitness. A gene for inhibiting impulse-control could be dominant, but that wouldn't make it desirable for civilized society to reproduce. Trying to rationalize your cuckolding fetish with half-baked Darwinism is asinine.

Did you know, shitposting aside, Anglos are Germanics?

good and bad are subjective. All i'm asserting, in the objective language of evolution, that whites are designed to be bred out. That can be a good or bad thing to different people.

I am pretty sure that

1. OP is not german
2. OP is jewfuck