Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic mixed people Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Anonymous Posted at 7:23 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 I think mixed people are so beautiful and unique. How could some people have a problem with them? The whole concept of preserving your race or ethnic group, I don't see many European countries looking pure, they all look mixed. Even in Scandinavia they have some dark haired people with dark eyes.

Replies jakelong Posted at 12:16 am on Sep. 6, 2008 Quote: from babycutie at 11:37 pm on Sep. 5, 2008 mixed people look amazing, it's like taking the best out of both cultures and putting it together . right on!   babycutie Posted at 11:37 pm on Sep. 5, 2008 mixed people look amazing, it's like taking the best out of both cultures and putting it together ah, one of my friends is french and asian....sounds odd, but he's hot. jakelong Posted at 10:04 pm on Sep. 5, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 4:37 pm on Sep. 1, 2008 Oh, really? Are you one of those guys that think race doesn't exist also? No but at least I dont think a race is located in a whole chromosome.   There is no "negro gene". There is, however, chromosomes unique by only existing in one race. You can't say a chromosome is unique to a race. we all share most of the same genes. In fact most of us have ALL the african genes. we just have a few avariations from them thats all http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 Not only that but caucasians are CLOSER in genes to africans than asians are. Thats from a source that believes in races. heres another The alleles for consecutive SNPs along a chromosome which are inherited as a unit are called "haplotypes." These haplotypes were then compared between the groups. Although 51% of the haplotypes were shared among all groups, on average, Africans (which included African Americans) possessed the most haplotypes. This finding indicates that the variation observed in European and Asian populations is a subset of African variation, and furthermore supports a single African origin for all humans. http://tinyurl.com/6okvol . If someone, let's say, find out that 10 generations ago, they had a Negro father, they can STILL, in my eyes, be considered white. so you dont believe in the one drop rule then. good! they are presented with 23 Negro chromosomes, and in turn, 23 Caucasian chromosomes. they have 23 chromosome from one parent and 23 chromoosmes from the other. But if you looked at the chromosome from the black parent you'd see that most of the genes are the SAME as the white parent, There no such thing as a "negro chromosome" it dont exist. You confuse genotype and phenotype. So dont give men BS about biology. you failed that class.   "First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically less diverse... For example, the chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of diversity than do humans (Ebersberger et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2003; Fischer et al. 2004)." Human variation is also distributed in an unusual and not easily understood fashion compared to other mammalian species: "The details of this distribution are impossible to describe succinctly because of the difficulty of defining a 'population,' the clinal nature of variation, and heterogeneity across the genome (Long and Kittles 2003).... This distribution of genetic variation differs from the pattern seen in many other mammalian species, for which existing data suggest greater differentiation between groups (Templeton 1998; Kittles and Weiss 2003)."[45]   "Since the 1980s, there have been indications that the genetic diversity of humans is low compared with that of many other species. This has been interpreted to mean that humans are a relatively young species, so populations have had relatively little time to differentiate from one another. For example, 2 randomly chosen humans differ at ~1 in 1,000 nucleotide pairs, whereas two chimpanzees differ at ~1 in 500 nucleotide pairs.[46]   "'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations....The DNA of an unknown individual from one of the sampled populations would probably be correctly linked to a population. Because this identification is possible does not mean that there is a level of differentiation equal to 'races'. The genetics of Homo sapiens shows gradients of differentiation."[47]   "Humans are ~98.8% similar to chimpanzees at the nucleotide level and are considerably more similar to each other, differing on average at only 1 of every 500−1,000 nucleotides between chromosomes. This degree of diversity is less than what typically exists [/b among chimpanzees.[48]   "The average proportion of nucleotide differences between a randomly chosen pair of humans (i.e., average nucleotide diversity, or π) is consistently estimated to lie between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500. This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1275602 http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html kidd rune Posted at 4:37 pm on Sep. 1, 2008 you noticed that too? The guy just has no clue what hes talking about its plain as day. Oh, really? Are you one of those guys that think race doesn't exist also? The only reason race is a debatable topic is because some people are dumb enough to deny common sense. its simple: it doesn't exist. 1. what ppl might call "negro" features come from MANY different genes. some of them can be found among whites, asians, etc... 2. how far back do you have to look to say some person has black ancestors? 200 years? 300 years? 400 years? i bet alot of white looking ppl have some black ancestor if they really looked. There is no "negro gene". There is, however, chromosomes unique by only existing in one race. The "darker skin complexion" is NOT just a negro gene. Dark skin CAN exist on a 100% Caucasian. There are MANY differences between Negroes and others that are easily, and not so easily, identifiable. And yes, a lot of whites may have Negro ancestors. I don't. If someone, let's say, find out that 10 generations ago, they had a Negro father, they can STILL, in my eyes, be considered white. If you know how genetics are transferred, you would see this. If someone is biracial, with a purely Caucasian parent and purely Negro parent, they are presented with 23 Negro chromosomes, and in turn, 23 Caucasian chromosomes. If said child then marries a 100% Caucasian AGAIN, they will pass on 23 random Chromosomes of their 46 chromosomes. Now, it's entirely possible, but INCREDIBLY rare, that all 23 chromosomes would be of one race. For the sake of averages, we'll use 50/50. So, that child has, out of 46 chromosomes, 12 Negro chromosomes and, 34 Caucasian ones. That child, which is considered a quadroon, then marries a nice white lady. That quadroon, having 1/4 of his chromosomes Negroid, gives off 6 Negroid chromosomes (50%) and 17 white chromosomes. THAT kid has a kid with a 100% white, and gives off 20 Caucasian chromosomes and 3 Negroid chromosomes. The child of THAT, in turn, could very well give off ALL white chromosomes, 'bleeding out' all of the Negroid in him. If not, his next child probably would do so. 200, 300, and 400 years are a LONG time, and all present genetics of Negroid ancestry could be gone. The same can be said about whites saying "I found out that I had a great-great-great Native American grandma!" Since Amerinds are the most mutated humans, and given the fact that most mutations are RECESSIVE, that whitey could, indeed, have no present Amerind genes. Well, that's it for my Biology lesson :) jakelong Posted at 3:30 pm on Sep. 1, 2008 Quote: from Takinam at 1:48 am on Aug. 30, 2008 This is idiocy. He keeps with the constant jabbering on racial genes. I have yet to see such evidence and the existence of race is a debatable topic that kidd_rune sees no need to argue. He has no idea of what truly constitutes a suitable division for the justification of human classification according to race and he is simply relying on the three race bases of which anthropology is constantly rearranging. you noticed that too? The guy just has no clue what hes talking about its plain as day. I, have no idea as to what a negro gene would entail. The gene that offers marginally darker skin complexion is not referred to as such. its simple: it doesn't exist. 1. what ppl might call "negro" features come from MANY different genes. some of them can be found among whites, asians, etc... 2. how far back do you have to look to say some person has black ancestors? 200 years? 300 years? 400 years? i bet alot of white looking ppl have some black ancestor if they really looked. The one drop rule doesn't biologically exist regardless of what kidd_rune says. anonymous was makin fun.   kidd rune Posted at 8:56 am on Aug. 30, 2008 how big does the drop have to be? how many millimeter cubes are we talking? What the hell are you talking about? No but you BELIEVE in that shit. I believe that the rule exists. I'm not saying 1/2 white 1/2 negro person is a negro though. If you have 'one drop of negro blood' you are no longer white, and will not be part of that '2 whites make a negro baby' claim. How many genes do you need? How do you define a NEGRO GENE? One, simply put. If ONE chromosome is of nonwhite origin, that person is no longer white seeing as it can give negro chromosomes.  Now, their children may be 100% white... She is of mixed race. The one drop rule doesn't biologically exist regardless of what kidd_rune says. It DOESN'T BIOLOGICALLY EXIST, but it does exist in our claims. I only used this to defeat the '2 whites make a black baby' claim, seeing as if they had any negro genes, they wouldn't be white. Two whites can't make a negro baby, it's IMPOSSIBLE. Takinam Posted at 1:48 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 11:35 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:24 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 [The one drop rule indicates that a biracial person of negro and Caucasian descent is INDICATED AS NEGRO. how big does the drop have to be? how many millimeter cubes are we talking?     I didn't make the one drop rule dipshit, I just see that it exists here. No but you BELIEVE in that shit. If they possessed negro genes How many genes do you need? How do you define a NEGRO GENE? This is idiocy. He keeps with the constant jabbering on racial genes. I have yet to see such evidence and the existence of race is a debatable topic that kidd_rune sees no need to argue. He has no idea of what truly constitutes a suitable division for the justification of human classification according to race and he is simply relying on the three race bases of which anthropology is constantly rearranging. I, have no idea as to what a negro gene would entail. The gene that offers marginally darker skin complexion is not referred to as such. Quote: from Anonymous at 11:55 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 So Mariah Carey is black?? gasps..lol She is of mixed race. The one drop rule doesn't biologically exist regardless of what kidd_rune says. Anonymous Posted at 11:55 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 So Mariah Carey is black?? gasps..lol jakelong Posted at 11:35 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:24 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 [The one drop rule indicates that a biracial person of negro and Caucasian descent is INDICATED AS NEGRO. how big does the drop have to be? how many millimeter cubes are we talking?   I didn't make the one drop rule dipshit, I just see that it exists here. No but you BELIEVE in that shit. If they possessed negro genes How many genes do you need? How do you define a NEGRO GENE? kidd rune Posted at 10:36 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from The Artful Dodger at 10:33 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:30 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from The Artful Dodger at 10:27 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 So then have you considered that the one drop rule isn't a good rule to apply, especially when going into the more scientific/physical aspect of "race"? The one drop rule claims that someone can't be white if they have "one drop" of Negro blood. Without negro blood, a Negro child CAN NOT be created.    That is all I claimed. No one asked about the one-drop rule. So one could have only assumed that its what you subscribed to. be more clear next time. Confused with different threads and shit. One drop rule discussion was in another thread. The Artful Dodger Posted at 10:33 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:30 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from The Artful Dodger at 10:27 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 So then have you considered that the one drop rule isn't a good rule to apply, especially when going into the more scientific/physical aspect of "race"? The one drop rule claims that someone can't be white if they have "one drop" of Negro blood. Without negro blood, a Negro child CAN NOT be created. That is all I claimed. No one asked about the one-drop rule. So one could have only assumed that its what you subscribed to. be more clear next time.   kidd rune Posted at 10:30 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from The Artful Dodger at 10:27 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 So then have you considered that the one drop rule isn't a good rule to apply, especially when going into the more scientific/physical aspect of "race"? The one drop rule claims that someone can't be white if they have "one drop" of Negro blood. Without negro blood, a Negro child CAN NOT be created. That is all I claimed. The Artful Dodger Posted at 10:27 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 So then have you considered that the one drop rule isn't a good rule to apply, especially when going into the more scientific/physical aspect of "race"? kidd rune Posted at 10:24 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 And it doesn't matter what you "think". Your "thinking" doesn't classify as anything more than conjecture Biracial is a label. Race is a concept. Biracial indicates that you are composed of two races out of the 5 races of humanity. Race indicates one of those 5 divisions of our species according to genetic makeup. And just a few moments ago, you hardly recognized biracial as a label. No, I didn't. The one drop rule indicates that a biracial person of negro and Caucasian descent is INDICATED AS NEGRO. If two whites naturally made a baby that was, somehow, a negro, they wouldn't be Caucasians. They would possess negro genes which would, in turn, label them as negro by the one-drop rule. You simply mixed race (with black) as simply black and ignored biracial as a label. Enough of your selective ignorance. I didn't make the one drop rule dipshit, I just see that it exists here. Two whites can't make a negro baby. It's IMPOSSIBLE. If they possessed negro genes, they would be considered Negroes BY THE ONE DROP RULE, but Biracial by genetic makeup. This I never claimed as false. Keile Posted at 10:13 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:11 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Creating a new race takes YEARS of evolution. Mixing a Caucasian and a Negro doesn't make another race, it makes you Biracial. TWO Races.   My eyes are from one individual in the Black Sea region (or so they say). Seeing as all eye colors that aren't brown are PURELY Nordic traits, it wouldn't be wise to claim them from another race.   My genetic variation is about 0.025% different than the average Lapp, and it's 0.133% from the Nigerian.   Now, how many Sami people have light blue eyes that grayen by age and blond hair that darkens by age? None (Without mixing).   Seeing as the Lapps are the closest non-Caucasoid peoples to my race, most unique things I have to them are unique to all races.   And I don't think we came from monkeys, but a common ancestor.   If you don't believe in EVOLUTION, the change over time, you are horribly lost. The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is different though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings) And it doesn't matter what you "think". Your "thinking" doesn't classify as anything more than conjecture. Biracial is a label. Race is a concept. And just a few moments ago, you hardly recognized biracial as a label. You simply mixed race (with black) as simply black and ignored biracial as a label. Enough of your selective ignorance. Most recent 15 of 39 previous replies displayed.