Originally Posted by TripleXPrint (Post 18083434)

An addendum to my post above. The slave owners did more mental work and that's why whites are smarter than blacks.

Booya!!! I'm just fucking around.....that was a complete joke! Everyone knows Asians are the smartest people in the world. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by TripleXPrint (Post 18083512)

Your post his one huge contradiction. I think you're confusing genetic adaptation (at a molecular level) with intelligence adaptation. You say that environmental adaptations aren't passed down through the genome and you are completely incorrect. That is exactly what defines genetic adaptation and gene mutation.

For example: A man has no clothes. He learns that he can use animal fur to keep himself warm. He passes this down to his children, and their children's children. That would be the passing of knowledge, not genetics.

On the other hand, a man is cold and doesn't quite figure out how to use animal furs to warm up. His body starts to produce more hair, speeds up his metabolism to produce more internal heat, and grows thicker hair. This is genetic adaptation and is certainly passed down through generations in the form of DNA...it becomes a part of his genome. If it wasn't passed down, everyone in the world would look the same.

A black man's genetic make up is different that white persons because of those adaptations. Their bodies adapted to become uber-efficient, using the best of the little they received. They processed nutrients more efficiently in the areas they most needed them (muscular structure, bone density, lung capacity, etc).

Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18083588)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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

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.

Originally Posted by TripleXPrint (Post 18083431)

I don't believe it's in the "breeding" but the actual work being done. Slaves were primarily used to do work their owners didn't...mainly manual labor. Slaves worked in the fields all day while their fat owners sat inside. Also take the food into account. I'm pretty sure slaves were fed lesser meals than the owners while doing 1000% more work. With that combination, their bodies would have naturally adapted to lesser intakes of protein and other essential amino acids. The body is a phenomenal thing and when it's not getting enough nutrients, it finds a way to adapt. Basically their bodies adapted to do more with less. Those genetic changes have stayed and that's why blacks are generally more athletic, stronger, and possess more endurance.

I've had black friends that would go to the gym for 6 months and look like a fucking body builder. When in the same amount of time, our white friends didn't look nearly as ripped or developed. My friend Lynell said it was his Mandigo blood but I digress.

I agree with the premise that slave owners purchased the strongest and healthiest slaves, but in those times, just making it across the ocean in those slave boats would have been a good indicator of strength and will to live. But, I don't think it played a big part in the genetic make up of a present day black man. I feel it was a combination of hard work and poor diet that sparked the genetic advantages we witness today.

Originally Posted by wdsguy (Post 18082091)

Yes it is true. Unfortunately it also caused their offsprings to have a violent streak.

Originally Posted by mizmiz (Post 18083643)

Your probebly the stupidest motha fucker I have ever seen. So just because one of ur friend cant get a six pack all black men get builder faster?

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

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.

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?

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 18083629)

smoking cigarettes mutates dna
http://blogs.star-telegram.com/inves...our-genes.html

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 18082119)

Jimmy the Greek lost his job over saying that out loud.

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.