GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Is it true that african americans had been bred to produce stronger offspring during slavery? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1019715)

_Richard_ 04-24-2011 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18083588)
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You really have no idea about any of this stuff do you?

Your DNA doesn't mutate after you're born, your DNA is the same when you're born and when you die.

Adaptation isn't passed on to your kids. The way it works is if there are 100 men and 50 of them aren't hairy enough and don't have fast enough metabolisms then those 50 die and don't have children. The result is children that are hairy not because their parents adapted and passed that on to them but because of natural selection only the ones who could handle their environment survived.

Over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, different traits are selected for and passed onto future generations. The ones that don't possess those traits tend to die and the ones that do tend to live. That's how it works.

Take your hypothetical hairy man - if the man's metabolism sped up and his hair grew thicker then those traits would have been passed onto his children regardless of if they came into use for him. But the point is he didn't change his DNA in a way to make his body produce more hair - that was part of him when he was born.

When DNA mutates it's because of something like radiation. Every time your cells multiply they make a copy of the DNA and sometimes radiation and things like bad copies happen where one or two things is out of place. Sometimes that leads to things like cancer.

Everyone in the world doesn't look the same because people are a product of two other people.

Adaptation doesn't happen in a single generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

so a pregnant womans dna is mutating, but only for the unborn baby?

makes sense, please continue

50 'gene 50' mutates

BVF 04-24-2011 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 18082472)
that was an exact quote of what he said - why do you have a problem with it? he's stating a fact, that yes slave owners would breed slaves like a common house dog, so they'd have stronger bigger slaves. they'd also beat their slaves worse than any common house dog. should people not mention how slaves were treated? i don't understand you as a black person taking this position, you want to sweep slavery under the carpet?

of course in this politically correct world of ours Jimmy the Greek should have kept his mouth shut but the guy wasn't a racist, he was friends with all the major black athletes of the day.

You can't be that dense....nobody is saying that it wasn't true or shouldn't be said...However, you shouldn't use the term "black buck" DURING SUNDAY AFTERNOON FOOTBALL....Why? because it's a fucking derogatory term...If I was commenting on Wimbledon and said referring to Federer, "That peckerwood sure is light on his feet"....I would get FIRED because I used the derogatory term "peckerwood"

There's a time and place for everything....and referring to big black bucks while peoples families watching was ignorant...

I really hope that you're not that ignorant and are just playing devil's advocate here.

moeloubani 04-24-2011 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripleXPrint (Post 18083608)
I think we're in the same conference hall but debating different topics. You're debating natural selection and I'm debating adaptation at the genome level.

Yes it does. Once again, mutations occur and those become a part of your DNA.

http://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=5716&year=2006

Once again, natural selection vs. DNA adaptation/mutation. Two different things.

How does one "inherit" a trait? How about the susceptibility of getting a disease more than someone else because it's in your genetic makeup? The son of an alcoholic has more of a chance of becoming an alcoholic because of gene mutations that are passed down in the form of DNA.

Not entirely true. There are other causes of mutation other than radiation.

I'm not talking about general looks. I'm talking about overall features and coloring.

You have your points and I agree with some, but I feel like we're debating two different things so there really is no winner. We're in the same area, just not playing the same game. I'm not going to debate natural selection because I wholeheartedly believe it to be scientific fact. But we're talking about different things, would you respectfully agree?

First of all no - we aren't arguing different things. You're spouting stuff that's wrong, and I'm setting you straight as to why what you're saying is wrong and telling you what is right. Make no mistake of that.

You say that mutations occur and it becomes part of your DNA and then you give me a link to prove your point. Except the link says:

Quote:

Barbara Biesecker, M.S.: Overall, no. But in each cell there are spontaneous mutations (changes) and activation of genes. So DNA is dynamic even though you are born with all the DNA you will have in your body cells throughout your lifetime.
Proving my point exactly. Changes in DNA occur at the cellular level due to radiation and things like that but there are no overall changes in DNA.

Someone inherits a trait by that trait being passed onto them from their parents. Over time, people with certain traits are more likely to survive and have children and that's how traits develop.

The son of an alcoholic only gets that trait passed onto him because his father ALSO had that trait passed onto him by one of his parents, and if you follow the chain down far enough that same trait was introduced by natural selection for some reason or another.

Just because you spent your life becoming a body builder it doesn't make your kid any better at becoming a body builder. The kid may get that gene that gives them the ability to become one and the ability to build muscle but it is the same gene that you had that let you do the same thing and it was passed onto you from your parents.

When a DNA mutation happens it happens in a single cell, not all across the board on your body. Overall the DNA you are born with is the DNA that contains the code to everything in your life from birth - to death. Outside influences can affect that but they do not alter that code that was there when you were born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18083629)

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18083588)
When DNA mutates it's because of something like radiation. Every time your cells multiply they make a copy of the DNA and sometimes radiation and things like bad copies happen where one or two things is out of place. Sometimes that leads to things like cancer.

Asked and answered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 18083677)
so a pregnant womans dna is mutating, but only for the unborn baby?

makes sense, please continue

50 'gene 50' mutates

Neither an unborn baby or a pregnant woman has DNA that is mutating. When the egg is fertilized by sperm and that initial cell is formed it contains the DNA that will tell your cells how to build a human. That same DNA is reproduced and can be found in every single cell in your body.

potter 04-24-2011 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 18082294)
political correct bullshit, there is nothing offensive at all about the statement - he was stating a historical fact, he never said or inferred slavery was a good thing.

WHAT?! :ugone2far

How the hell is that not offensive? Dude...... Just because something happened in history, it isn't ok to go saying it on TV in a situation like that. That would be like two people eating pizza on a show and one of them saying "you know the jews in nazi germany were cooked in ovens". What the hell does the fact it's a "true" or "historical" fact? It's still offensive as fuck.

That dude deserved everything he got, that was probably one of the most offensive things ever stated on tv.

TripleXPrint 04-24-2011 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubanihttp://www.gofuckyourself.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=18083710 (Post 18083710)
First of all no - we aren't arguing different things.

So from the beginning of time human DNA has been the EXACT SAME? From the very beginning of homo erectus nothing has changed? We're all genetic clones? That's what you're saying, I not only proved you wrong but I offered an olive branch and safe exit so you could keep your intellect minimally bruised.

You are completely wrong. You're arguing that natural selection is how we evolved but in reality, it's the DNA that provides the boost that makes certain traits more desirable therefore providing the theory of natural selection any legs to begin with. Want me to write it out in crayon for ya? Would that help you understand my theory, big guy?


Here you go, champ. Maybe digesting some Darwin, the father of the theory of natural selection will help you swallow the heaping doses of reality I'm spoon feeding you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

"Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. Factors which affect reproductive success are also important, an issue which Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection."

potter 04-24-2011 12:08 PM

Another analogy.

dude1: Yeah this is blahblah fence, it's commonly used in blahblah type landscapes
dude2: Isn't that the type of fence that queer in Minnesota was tied to and beaten to death?
dude1: .........
dude2: What? There WAS a gay kid tied to a fence like this and beaten to death. It ACTUALLY happened, so it's cool for me to mention.

Right Mutt... That would perfectly ok right? Since it is a historical fact, it did actually happen. Nothing offensive about it at all. Just a guy discussing an event that happened in history.

brassmonkey 04-24-2011 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF (Post 18083706)
You can't be that dense....nobody is saying that it wasn't true or shouldn't be said...However, you shouldn't use the term "black buck" DURING SUNDAY AFTERNOON FOOTBALL....Why? because it's a fucking derogatory term...If I was commenting on Wimbledon and said referring to Federer, "That peckerwood sure is light on his feet"....I would get FIRED because I used the derogatory term "peckerwood"

There's a time and place for everything....and referring to big black bucks while peoples families watching was ignorant...

I really hope that you're not that ignorant and are just playing devil's advocate here.

exactly! :2 cents:

helterskelter808 04-24-2011 12:13 PM

What did Jimmy The Greek actually say and do?

Seems he either used the term "big black buck" during a football commentary. Which is both offensive and unprofessional, and reason enough to fire him.

Or he used the term "a big black" (which is still not right as black should be used as an adjective not a noun) 'privately' to someone at a restaurant, away from his job.

The second scenario is quite a bit different from the first.

As to the idea of owners "breeding" slaves (whether the idea makes sense or not)... as if slavery wasn't bad enough already. :disgust

Ironically, despite how far the world has 'progressed', there are now more slaves today than at any time in history. :(

ottopottomouse 04-24-2011 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potter (Post 18083726)
Another analogy.

dude1: Yeah this is blahblah fence, it's commonly used in blahblah type landscapes
dude2: Isn't that the type of fence that queer in Minnesota was tied to and beaten to death?
dude1: .........
dude2: What? There WAS a gay kid tied to a fence like this and beaten to death. It ACTUALLY happened, so it's cool for me to mention.

Right Mutt... That would perfectly ok right? Since it is a historical fact, it did actually happen. Nothing offensive about it at all. Just a guy discussing an event that happened in history.

If dude1 is trying to sell dude2 a fence, and dude2 doesn't want to keep finding dead gays tied to his fence, it's a perfectly valid reason to not want that type of fence :upsidedow

moeloubani 04-24-2011 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripleXPrint (Post 18083724)
So from the beginning of time human DNA has been the EXACT SAME? From the very beginning of homo erectus nothing has changed? We're all genetic clones? That's what you're saying, I not only proved you wrong but I offered an olive branch and safe exit so you could keep your intellect minimally bruised.

You are completely wrong. You're arguing that natural selection is how we evolved but in reality, it's the DNA that provides the boost that makes certain traits more desirable therefore providing the theory of natural selection any legs to begin with. Want me to write it out in crayon for ya? Would that help you understand my theory, big guy?


Here you go, champ. Maybe digesting some Darwin, the father of the theory of natural selection will help you swallow the heaping doses of reality I'm spoon feeding you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

"Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. Factors which affect reproductive success are also important, an issue which Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection."

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Why would we be perfect clones of each other?

YOU are the one that doesn't understand.

Mom and dad had sex. The result was YOU. YOU are some of your mom and some of your dad. THAT is where genetic variation happens.

Natural selection IS how we evolved, that is what evolution is all about.

YOU are saying that DNA changes throughout your lifetime when you yourself have read that it DOESN'T.

Someone is big because their parents were big, not because their parents did a lot of physical activity. If I don't have the trait to be a giant body builder there is no way I'm going to pass that onto my kids no matter how much body building or steroids I take and no matter how big I get.

ilnjscb 04-24-2011 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF (Post 18083706)
You can't be that dense....nobody is saying that it wasn't true or shouldn't be said...However, you shouldn't use the term "black buck" DURING SUNDAY AFTERNOON FOOTBALL....Why? because it's a fucking derogatory term...If I was commenting on Wimbledon and said referring to Federer, "That peckerwood sure is light on his feet"....I would get FIRED because I used the derogatory term "peckerwood"

There's a time and place for everything....and referring to big black bucks while peoples families watching was ignorant...

I really hope that you're not that ignorant and are just playing devil's advocate here.

That image is funny as hell!! "That peckerwood sure is light on his feet"!!

He's right though, white folks.

dyna mo 04-24-2011 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18083710)
First of all no - we aren't arguing different things. You're spouting stuff that's wrong, and I'm setting you straight as to why what you're saying is wrong and telling you what is right. Make no mistake of that.

You say that mutations occur and it becomes part of your DNA and then you give me a link to prove your point. Except the link says:



Proving my point exactly. Changes in DNA occur at the cellular level due to radiation and things like that but there are no overall changes in DNA.

Someone inherits a trait by that trait being passed onto them from their parents. Over time, people with certain traits are more likely to survive and have children and that's how traits develop.

The son of an alcoholic only gets that trait passed onto him because his father ALSO had that trait passed onto him by one of his parents, and if you follow the chain down far enough that same trait was introduced by natural selection for some reason or another.

Just because you spent your life becoming a body builder it doesn't make your kid any better at becoming a body builder. The kid may get that gene that gives them the ability to become one and the ability to build muscle but it is the same gene that you had that let you do the same thing and it was passed onto you from your parents.

When a DNA mutation happens it happens in a single cell, not all across the board on your body. Overall the DNA you are born with is the DNA that contains the code to everything in your life from birth - to death. Outside influences can affect that but they do not alter that code that was there when you were born.




Asked and answered.



Neither an unborn baby or a pregnant woman has DNA that is mutating. When the egg is fertilized by sperm and that initial cell is formed it contains the DNA that will tell your cells how to build a human. That same DNA is reproduced and can be found in every single cell in your body.

got it......

$5 submissions 04-24-2011 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 18082119)
Jimmy the Greek lost his job over saying that out loud.

Yeah, I remember when that news broke.

$5 submissions 04-24-2011 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett (Post 18082141)
Breeding such traits in only a few generations highly unlikely.

From my understanding, slave shippers, with substantial help from African tribes themselves (the part many history books gloss over), weren't overly interested in individual traits, but rather sheer numbers ... more slaves that made it over alive, the more money made for shippers.

The part above was only true until the 1820s. When Britain banned slave shipping and ENFORCED it on all ships, the economic dynamics changed. That's why there were slave breeding operations in the United States and other places. http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=...farm& f=false

eroticsexxx 04-24-2011 07:53 PM

There are recorded historical instances of slave breeding based on genetic benefits.

No big deal.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc