Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Thank goodness for immigrants coming to the US! 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 ] Quote: from [m]jakelong[/m] at 4:29 pm on Sep. 20, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]kidd rune[/m] at 12:36 pm on Sep. 20, 2008[quote] [b]Only[/b] Nordic traits can be found in people of Nordic ancestry. [/quote]Again that's false. And I proved it. [quote] This is due to the fact that the certain mutation that created the trait would be from ONE person. That ONE person is the ancestor of EVERYONE with that trait. If he is Nordish, then anyone with that particular mutation have his trait. [/quote] Oh you mean we are All from genghis khan and since he's nordish according to you then we all nordish. ok. [quote] Now, John can have green eyes and billy can have green eyes. But, if the green eyed trait mutated from two different people, therefore different mutations and different traits (but the same phenotype), then they don't, necessarily, have the same ancestor.[/quote] So how do YOU know for SURE that that ancestor is nordish if you DON'T have his ancestry chart? All you really know is that there is a trait "green eyes" or "blond hair" that shows up in a person that's all. If you DON"T have his ancestry chart you CAN'T tell for SURE that he has nordish ancestry or not. Therefore you can't really say this or that trait BELONGS to a particular race. ALL you can say is that trait is MORE COMMON among that race. Therefore if you see someone with some particular trait like blue eyes or blond hair or w/e [size=5]ALL you CAN say is that the PROBABILITY that he is from European ancestry is HIGHER than that he is from other ancestry.[/size] THAT's IT!!! You can't say there is 0% nordish or 100% nordish or that he HAS TO have nordish ancestry or that the trait can ONLY come from nordish ancestry. You can't make that kind of 100% judgement on it. It is NOT SCIENTIFIC and NOT VALID. All you can talk about is [b]probability[/b], and that is something BETWEEN 0% an 100% NOT included in this case, especially when you speak of polygenic traits and what phenotypes show up. Get it now?[/quote] 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 EmilyAnn Posted at 9:15 pm on Sep. 15, 2008 Otherwise I wouldn't be alive today! It's so funny how people are assholes about immigrants entering the US. I understand that certain things suck, like them being illegal and not paying taxes, shit like that, but helllooo? Many of them AREN'T illegal and actually try to get their citizenship here. Look at the bigger picture. Be appreciative that people immigrated to the US. If my ancestors didn't come from Norway, Ireland, Germany, Austria, etc., they never would've met and had the babies that led to babies that led to me. Ungrateful closed-minded US citizens.

Replies flor de saison1 Posted at 12:15 am on Sep. 23, 2008 well if they're escaping the halocaust or something like that i dont blame them for being illegal but otherwise they piss me off ok yeah of course i have family that came here from other countries but they did it LEGALLY! even tho people called them wops they really were legal jakelong Posted at 11:14 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Thank goodness for immigrants who came to the US! Thanks Emily Ann! I am done arguing with stupid trolls. Good night!   kidd rune Posted at 4:00 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 So you are saying those isolated people got the white trait from God? They did NOT get a White trait. High. (hows' that for "precise"?) Give me the link. Why should I trust them? The blue eye trait was found to come from a single person but NO ONE said what race he was. Not only that the trait does not originate from an area where whites are in great numbers, least of all nordics. Are you crazy? The Northern Black Sea, the region where the trait is said to have started, is EXACTLY where Nordics were in great numbers. This was BEFORE they migrated into Europe and the rest of the world. The only difference is that the European migrations didn't end with destruction of race by mixing. That's why you still can find a few people with blue eyes in the rest of the world. Whites touched it, they just mixed out so the majority of their genes are gone. Since blue eyes show up all over the place it don't mean shit about where races are located. It's where they're originated. Of course the trait is widely distributed, Whites moved all around the Earth. More like an ASSFACT guess. Present me with YOUR theory on what race the person with blue eyes is or why we can't determine it (even though most anthropologists seem to think they can...) Middle Eastern were the population. We do not know what RACE they were. And, yes, we DO know what race the Middle Easterners were during certain time periods. What time period do YOU think it was? Nope. The Iranians/Aryans CAME FROM Iran and the Middle East. No, they came from the Northern Black Sea region INTO Iran. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Aryan-migration That is some of them might have ORIGINATED. Not from the Nordic area. What's the "Nordic Area"? FROM the black Sea TO Europe. Not the other way around. That's what I said. From the "Northern Black Sea region into Europe" That means they were FIRST in the Black Sea region THEN they went to Europe, bringing with them their White genetics that they ALSO took to Iran and all of the other places you see those nice, White traits. Survival through mixing. Yep sounds good to me. You fell for my trap... The Nordic race is almost only found pure in Europe. The rest of the places they migrated to they created a civilization, mixed, and it fell. In Europe, they stayed strong, powerful, and on top of the Earth until each individual country was too much for them. Many were created by Whites FROM Europe, many were given up because of the weakened White Empires. Nevertheless, race mixing and multiracialism is a big reason why they fell. Things change in history. Don't base all your facts on the 19th and 20th century. I'm not. I'm sure, one day, an all Negro nation will rise up and be the smartest, most powerful nation on Earth, even though all present history, thousands of years worth, is proof that that probably will never happen. India is a nice example. India's Negroid peoples have been subjected to numerous White invasions for over 5000 years, prompting the rise and fall of one civilization after another as the White invaders became absorbed into the non-White masses. Then, about 1800 B.C. Aryans again invaded from the northwest, this time establishing a rigid caste system of White supremacy which eventually evolved into an integral part of the Hindu religion. Interracial mixing was banned and punishable by death. Led by an Aryan ruling class, Classical India blossomed into a great culture, giving expression to philosophy, poetry, science, mathematics, and literature. The land prospered as never before --or after. The caste system lasted about 2,000 years (probably longer than any civilization under similar racial circumstances.) However, eventually the castes broke down due to miscegenation and by modern times virtually no pure Whites were remaining. Chinese, Mayan, Inca and Middle Eastern Civilizations brought us the greatest technological and inventions without which nothing else would have happened. No, they didn't really. I disproved your 4 Chinese invention myths. The Mayans and Inca weren't really all that great compared to the Europeans. The Middle East itself has had a BIG White influence. You forgot Greece, Rome, Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt, and Persia(to name a few). Tyrant Posted at 6:38 am on Sep. 22, 2008 At the end of the day we Americans like other Americans and thats it, all immigrants need to stay in their own damn country jakelong Posted at 11:19 am on Sep. 21, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:30 am on Sep. 21, 2008 Their "Sandy" hair would, of course, be an Australoid trait, while the blond hair you see today would be a White trait. So you are saying those isolated people got the white trait from God?   What's the probability? High. (hows' that for "precise"?) You can only trust the Anthropologists that try to find the oldest person that had these traits. Why should I trust them? The blue eye trait was found to come from a single person but NO ONE said what race he was. Not only that the trait does not originate from an area where whites are in great numbers, least of all nordics. You can also only trust what we know about history and where certain races were located. Since blue eyes show up all over the place it don't mean shit about where races are located.   THAT is an educated guess, of course. More like an ASSFACT guess. As during that time, populations were isolated and in that specific region, Whites were the population. Middle Eastern were the population. We do not know what RACE they were. Exactly. The Aryans migrated into the Middle east, Afganistan, and India. Nope. The Iranians/Aryans CAME FROM Iran and the Middle East. That's why many white traits are present in Iran. That is some of them might have ORIGINATED. Not from the Nordic area.   But, what explains the Northern Europeans? As you know, there were migrations from the Northern Black Sea region into Europe FROM the black Sea TO Europe. Not the other way around. No... Mixing is what helped the European Nordish people STAY ALIVE Survival through mixing. Yep sounds good to me. Countries where Nordish people were present AND mixed are, as of today, not too great. Things change in history. Don't base all your facts on the 19th and 20th century. Chinese, Mayan, Inca and Middle Eastern Civilizations brought us the greatest technological and inventions without which nothing else would have happened. kidd rune Posted at 10:30 am on Sep. 21, 2008 Just shows you the whole thing is subjective anyway. Their "Sandy" hair would, of course, be an Australoid trait, while the blond hair you see today would be a White trait. yep according to the links on him anyway. You forgot about that? What's the probability? What model?   I was talking about the Green eyed traits I was speaking of. I used them as a MODEL, not a real-life example.  How do you know the traits ORIGINATE in whites?   You can only trust the Anthropologists that try to find the oldest person that had these traits. You can also only trust what we know about history and where certain races were located. And, again, you can trust how common it is among races, such as the Epicanthic eyefold is found almost purely among Mongoloids (with another, but similar, trait being found in Capoids. Again, no genetic similarity, only a phenotypic) How do you know that ONE person was white? THAT is an educated guess, of course. As during that time, populations were isolated and in that specific region, Whites were the population. Still blond hair color though. It's not really similar in color, I've said it A LOT, it's "Sandy", not really blond. Middle eastern iranians. Exactly. The Aryans migrated into the Middle east, Afganistan, and India. With them, they brought White traits to share with the Semitic people of the region. That's why many white traits are present in Iran. But, what explains the Northern Europeans? As you know, there were migrations from the Northern Black Sea region into Europe (the same as the Middle Eastern migrations). The only difference was that Europe didn't have much of an indigenous population. The rest of the world did. The Aryans that migrated to Europe didn't mix, the rest did. Aha! See? Mixing helped them! No... Mixing is what helped the European Nordish people STAY ALIVE, create the largest Empire the world has known, and made Europe the greatest maritime power ever. The Europeans, many descending from these people, created many societies and shaped the world, as we know it, today. Right now, you're reading an Indo-European language, Vinton Cerf (Father of the Internet) was a White American, and MANY presidents were of Nordish background. Gerald Ford and Theodore Roosevelt were Borreby, John F. Kennedy was a Brünn, and many more were of various Nordish groupings. Countries where Nordish people were present AND mixed are, as of today, not too great. mcgiraffe Posted at 9:46 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Post from this position was omitted due to content violations jakelong Posted at 7:47 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:10 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 There is a large texture difference, the Australoid hair is more "woolly". It's flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct (like Whites). Still blond hair color though. What race do you think OCCUPIED that region? Where did the Aryans migrate from? Middle eastern iranians. The Nordish race isn't purely in Northern Europe. Nordish people migrated all throughout the world, the European Nords just didn't die out by mixing. Aha! See? Mixing helped them! jakelong Posted at 7:44 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:10 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 And, again, it's "sandy" hair, not really considered blond by many. Just shows you the whole thing is subjective anyway.   High probability? You mean directly related to him? yep according to the links on him anyway. You forgot about that? It's not a particular trait, but an imaginary model. What model?   Of course ALL White traits are present in nonWhites because of mixing.  How do you know the traits ORIGINATE in whites?   Most mutations come from ONE person, and ONE person only. How do you know that ONE person was white? kidd rune Posted at 7:10 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 ZYou did.  Blond hair. But then you claimed it was not "nordic" since it did not come from a nordish. Pretty circular reasoning. If you're referring to the Australoids, that's not really the same blond hair as the Whites. It's, of course, not related to the Nordish trait in ANY WAY besides some phenotypic resemblance. And, again, it's "sandy" hair, not really considered blond by many. A lot of us are yeah. If your'e asian or white you have high probablity of being from khan himself. High probability? You mean directly related to him? Which trait are we talking about? And how do we know that trait is not present among nonwhites? It's not a particular trait, but an imaginary model. Of course ALL White traits are present in nonWhites because of mixing. Most mutations come from ONE person, and ONE person only. They became common because that ONE person gave out the mutation to people in his/her community. If that particular trait becomes common in other areas, that's because the community mixed with people from another community. Therefore, anyone within another community with that trait can trace that ONE person as their ancestor and have ancestry of his/her race. How so? It's not genetically related in any way. It's a whole different set of mutations and a entirely different trait. The ONLY link they have is a slight phenotypic resemblance. And, anyway, it's easy to distinguish between the Australoid 'blond' hair and the European blond hair. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Vanuatu_blonde.jpg http://www.meandisis.com/photos/jessica_biel_skinny_blond_2_big.jpg There is a large texture difference, the Australoid hair is more "woolly". It's flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct (like Whites). That is NOT the ONLY gene responsible actually I know, but that gene itself is the only specific one ABSOLUTELY NEEDED to have the blue eyes. BTW if he ORIGINATED from the BLACK SEA he did NOT come from the nordic area. *facepalm* What race do you think OCCUPIED that region? Where did the Aryans migrate from? The Nordish race isn't purely in Northern Europe. Nordish people migrated all throughout the world, the European Nords just didn't die out by mixing. Oh and it case you wonder Actually, light colored eyes have bad side effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macular_degeneration jakelong Posted at 6:13 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Oh and it case you wonder Nature shuffles our genes The mutation of brown eyes to blue represents neither a positive nor a negative mutation. It is one of several mutations such as hair colour, baldness, freckles and beauty spots, which neither increases nor reduces a human's chance of survival. As Professor Eiberg says, "it simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome, creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes as it does so." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm jakelong Posted at 6:10 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 4:53 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Which Nordic trait did you prove was in someone of nonWhite ancestry? I must have missed it.   ZYou did.  Blond hair. But then you claimed it was not "nordic" since it did not come from a nordish. Pretty circular reasoning. We're all from Khan? A lot of us are yeah. If your'e asian or white you have high probablity of being from khan himself.   If the trait itself appeared among a White and that ONE White distributed to many other people, ANYONE with that particular trait can trace their ancestry back to that one, single White. Which trait are we talking about? And how do we know that trait is not present among nonwhites? No. The blond hair of the European is A LOT different than the "sandy" hair of the Pacific Islander. How so? The blue eye mutation is a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene that originated in the Black Sea region. That is NOT the ONLY gene responsible actually Eye colors can range from the most common color, brown, to the least common, green. Rare genetic mutations can even lead to unusual eye colors: black, red, and violet. Eye color is an inherited trait influenced by more than one gene.[6][7] These genes are being sought using associations to small changes in the genes themselves and in neighboring genes. These changes are known as single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs. The actual number of genes that contribute to eye color is unknown at present, but there are a few likely candidates. The gene OCA2 (OMIM: 203200), when in a variant form the gene causes the pink eye color and hypopigmentation common in human albinism, (the name of the gene is derived from the disorder it causes, oculocutaneous albinism type II). Different SNPs within OCA2 are strongly associated with brown and green eyes as well as variations in freckling, mole counts, hair and skin tone. The polymorphisms may be in an OCA2 regulatory sequence, where they may influence the expression of the gene product, which in turn affects pigmentation.[8] A specific mutation within the HERC2 gene, a gene that regulates OCA2 expression, is partly responsible for blue eyes.[9] Other genes implicated in eye color variation are: SLC24A4[10], TYR [10]. The inheritance pattern followed by blue eyes is considered similar to that of a recessive trait, however it is a polygenic trait (meaning that it is controlled by the interactions of several genes, not just one).[7] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[27] Polygenic traits inheritance is not cut and dry. MANY factors are involved. Read up about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_trait_locus All it says is that some traits are MORE COMMON among certain races and LESS COMMON among other races. THAT's IT. The rest is pure guesswork. BTW if he ORIGINATED from the BLACK SEA he did NOT come from the nordic area. QED kidd rune Posted at 4:53 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Again that's false. And I proved it. Which Nordic trait did you prove was in someone of nonWhite ancestry? I must have missed it.     This is due to the fact that the certain mutation that created the trait would be from ONE person. That ONE person is the ancestor of EVERYONE with that trait. If he is Nordish, then anyone with that particular mutation have his trait. Oh you mean we are All from genghis khan and since he's nordish according to you then we all nordish. ok. We're all from Khan? So how do YOU know for SURE that that ancestor is nordish if you DON'T have his ancestry chart? All you really know is that there is a trait "green eyes" or "blond hair" that shows up in a person that's all. If you DON"T have his ancestry chart you CAN'T tell for SURE that he has nordish ancestry or not. I didn't say anything about Nordisness in that paragraph, did I? I said "Green eyes", that is all. Therefore you can't really say this or that trait BELONGS to a particular race. ALL you can say is that trait is MORE COMMON among that race. If the trait itself appeared among a White and that ONE White distributed to many other people, ANYONE with that particular trait can trace their ancestry back to that one, single White. Therefore if you see someone with some particular trait like blue eyes or blond hair or w/e ALL you CAN say is that the PROBABILITY that he is from European ancestry is HIGHER than that he is from other ancestry. THAT's IT!!! No. The blond hair of the European is A LOT different than the "sandy" hair of the Pacific Islander. They are different traits. The blue eye mutation is a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene that originated in the Black Sea region. Unless someone from another race mutated in the same way (which is almost impossible), the racial makeup of the single individual that achieved the blue eye mutation can be traced in ALL people with that trait as the ONLY way they could've gotten that certain mutation is by having that ONE individual as an ancestor. Now, of course, there isn't only one type of blue eye. There are blue eyes with brownish spots in the center which has proven to be unrelated to that particular mutation, therefore those people wouldn't, necessarily, have that one single Black Sea individual in their lineage. I Googled and found this link: http://www.livescience.com/health/080131-blue-eyes.html A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes. ... "From this we can conclude that all blue-eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor," Eiberg said. "They have all inherited the same switch at exactly the same spot in their DNA." ... "Out of 800 persons we have only found one person which didn't fit — but his eye color was blue with a single brown spot This site: http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ycznz claims that Everyone with blue eyes alive today - from Angelina Jolie to Wayne Rooney - can trace their ancestry back to one person who probably lived about 10,000 years ago in the Black Sea region, a study has found. And, of course, we know that the Black Sea was where the Aryan migrations originated from 5600BC on. You can't say there is 0% nordish or 100% nordish or that he HAS TO have nordish ancestry or that the trait can ONLY come from nordish ancestry. You can't make that kind of 100% judgement on it. It is NOT SCIENTIFIC and NOT VALID. Yes, it is. Obviously you don't understand. Sure, John and Billy both have green eyes but they aren't of the same mutation. Phenotypically, they're the same. Genetically, they aren't. If a Chinese man with blue eyes has the same mutation as a Norwegian with blue eyes, you can assure yourself that Chinese man and Norwegian have a common ancestor, one that had the FIRST blue eyes (that we have proof of). All you can talk about is probability, and that is something BETWEEN 0% an 100% NOT included in this case, especially when you speak of polygenic traits and what phenotypes show up. Get it now? Do YOU understand that the probability of the EXACT same mutation happening in two individuals is nothing short from IMPOSSIBLE? The mutations could be different resulting in a similar phenotype (take the Billy and John example). In that case, they don't necessarily have a common ancestor. But, if the mutation is the same, it's a 100% definite fact that they have a common ancestor. (unless, of course, the EXACT SAME mutation occurred, which I told you is insanely unlikely that many biologists view it as impossible). jakelong Posted at 4:29 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 12:36 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Only Nordic traits can be found in people of Nordic ancestry. Again that's false. And I proved it. This is due to the fact that the certain mutation that created the trait would be from ONE person. That ONE person is the ancestor of EVERYONE with that trait. If he is Nordish, then anyone with that particular mutation have his trait. Oh you mean we are All from genghis khan and since he's nordish according to you then we all nordish. ok. Now, John can have green eyes and billy can have green eyes. But, if the green eyed trait mutated from two different people, therefore different mutations and different traits (but the same phenotype), then they don't, necessarily, have the same ancestor. So how do YOU know for SURE that that ancestor is nordish if you DON'T have his ancestry chart? All you really know is that there is a trait "green eyes" or "blond hair" that shows up in a person that's all. If you DON"T have his ancestry chart you CAN'T tell for SURE that he has nordish ancestry or not. Therefore you can't really say this or that trait BELONGS to a particular race. ALL you can say is that trait is MORE COMMON among that race. Therefore if you see someone with some particular trait like blue eyes or blond hair or w/e ALL you CAN say is that the PROBABILITY that he is from European ancestry is HIGHER than that he is from other ancestry. THAT's IT!!! You can't say there is 0% nordish or 100% nordish or that he HAS TO have nordish ancestry or that the trait can ONLY come from nordish ancestry. You can't make that kind of 100% judgement on it. It is NOT SCIENTIFIC and NOT VALID. All you can talk about is probability, and that is something BETWEEN 0% an 100% NOT included in this case, especially when you speak of polygenic traits and what phenotypes show up. Get it now? kidd rune Posted at 12:36 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Quote: from jakelong at 7:43 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from kidd rune at 7:41 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Because if it was a Nordic trait, it would be found in Nordic ancestry ONLY. Sounds like curcular reasoning to me. Only nordica traits come from nordics BECAUSE they can ONLY be found among nordics? No. Only Nordic traits can be found in people of Nordic ancestry. This is due to the fact that the certain mutation that created the trait would be from ONE person. That ONE person is the ancestor of EVERYONE with that trait. If he is Nordish, then anyone with that particular mutation have his trait. The blue-eyed gene is thought to have appeared in one person in the Black-Sea region. ANYONE with that trait, of course, has HIM as an ancestor. Now, John can have green eyes and billy can have green eyes. But, if the green eyed trait mutated from two different people, therefore different mutations and different traits (but the same phenotype), then they don't, necessarily, have the same ancestor. Most recent 15 of 73 previous replies displayed.