Genetic diversity is good for breeding

Can you explain it in genetics terms, because my mate has a superiority complex because he went to university for 3 months and disregards everything I say.

I'm like, "mate, it's fucking obvious, you get a dumbfuck 60 IQ abbo and breed them with a white person, you're gonna get a dole bludger." But that's not "scientific enough."

Or you could learn to think for yourself.
If you claim to be so much more capable of critical reasoning than he is and that his dropping out of university after one semester means he's a fuckwit, then it should be a piece of cake to look up what he told you and refute it. We're not your personal army, we're too busy memeing Clinton's campaign into the dirt.

What, you're not my personal army?

Can you be my friend? I'm having a personal crisis, ya muppet.

Do you see how much alcohol I have left? not much. This is SERIOUS

I MIGHT BE SOBER IN A FEW MINUTES

Genetic diversity does not mean o mix races, in fact mixing races can create problems because of how different genes express themselves and interact, the best example i can come with is that mexican have a problem absorbing i think folic acid because of european-american mixture.

So, assuming diversity is inherently good, you should seek the most genetically diverse mate to breed the strongest children. Aboriginals are some of the most distant relatives youc can have within the human specie.

By that standard, bogan-abos mongrels should be eventually taking over on account of their superior attributes (attractiveness, athleticism, health, smarts, ...)

>folic acid
Does that mean you have trouble farting?

The offspring will.be the product of the recombinant Dna of the parents. When you breed a genetically inferior specimen with a normal one you create heterozygosity. The halfbreed will be between the two parents. If IQ is our example, a 100iq white and 80iq dindu will yield a roughly 90iq halfbreed. Basic concepts of animal husbandry and selective breeding apply to people too, as we are animals.

Redpilling him on race-iq relatedness is necessary.

It is good in some cases, in other cases it's not. Possible it is in most cases dependent on the evolutionary distance.

There is something called hybrid collapse (or maybe I don't recall the name correctly). It means that two groups of animals are functionally able to have offspring together, but this will result in offspring that has lower fitness than its parents and will die. That is one form of reproductive isolation, which is a process that helps evolution to create new species.

When a group of animals that functions as a reproductive unit is too big, evolution will be slow. That is because a mutation occuring in a single individual will take long time to reach the entire population and maybe it will due to bad luck before that happens. If the unit is to small however, mutations saturate the population too fast, so that mutations that are not adaptive can also become stable by chance.

Evolution will therefor favor populations in which there is a balance between evolution rate and evolution safety. And also it will generate mechanisms with which making a group too big or too small are penalized (i.e. inbreeding penalty and hybrid collapse).

t. biologist

Good point. So, inbreeding is bad. But, then, breeding outside your species is bad, right? So, where's the sweet-spot, scientifically speaking?

You know what brings me joy? Knowing that years old pastebins and lore that we got bored off, can BTFO jews by default.

pastebin.com/4qDqptnR

>The cunt dropped out after one semester for fucks sake!

There you go.

I see nothing wrong with a white/asian mix.
In a couple of generations a blue/blonde asian/white mix will emerge and be the benchmark for all future races

It's good if a plague comes along to keep humanity going but when a person mixes too far outside their line they run an increased risk of dental problems, for example, which in earlier times would have been fatal.

Actually, that makes a great deal of sense.

However, I think that academics seem to ignore qualitative characteristics. For example, you mentioned::

Group A is too small, therefore mutations saturate the population.
Group B is too large, therefore mutations are too slow.
Group B is just right.

But, I am more talking about Group A is perfect, lovely European stock, with lovely genetics. Group B are a bunch of fuckwits from some shitty continent that live in mud huts and eat babies. Somehow some hippie communist cocksucking reterosexual thinks it is a good idea for these morons to have sexual relations. This boggles my Gehirn.

Race is the foundation of culture. The is no culture that really thrives across racial boundaries, even black americans have a distinct culture from whites living in the same town for generations.

You should select mates within you own culture, thus race, if it is worth preserving and perpetuating. Just don't impregnate your cousin or some dumb shit, if you're not related it will be fine.

As a matter of fact, I believe it's not good but as bad as inbredding. this is suggested by studie(s?) that compared the number of descendants a couple would have, as a function of their relative relativity (?). Like a study about inbreeding basically. Apparently, the optimum is like when you have a granpa of a granpa in common with your m8. Now I'm way beyond my field of expertise, so even if this is a shitpost forum, I should stfu.

If you breed a white retard with a black retard, you're still going to get a retard. Have you asked him what his scientific basis for that level of mixing is?

>breeding between the lines

They are so fucking full of themselves.

It's literally, "oh my fucking flower t-shirt-wearing lecturer said so."

Yep, I remember reading a study where black children that are adopted by white families have the same educational outcomes as if they were living with the biological parents, because it is entirely genetic, not environmental, that determines their intelligence.

Fuck man. I haver had to deal with any of that shit when I did my degree. Not even in my genetics classes. The closest thing I could think of that would justify mixing is to avoid autosomal-recessive diseases, but even then your friend is really exaggerting it a ridiculous amount.

point proven by Alexandre I of Russia, Alexandre Dumas and a few others centuries ago of course.

Yeah, he was saying if Europeans (neanderthals) wouldn't have interbred with Africans (homo-sapiens), then we wouldn't have all this resistance to diseases, but that makes no sense to me.

>Asian smarter than whites

kek

Yeah, right, but that is somehow the effect I mentioned. When you have groups like the European tribes, they are just right in size for a good speed of evolution. That is one of the effects that made European DNA so strong. They could only evolve the way they did because they were in relative reproductive isolation from Africans and Asians. If open borders and trains and planes had been invented in ancient times, this could not have happened, because every good new gene would have been lost in the gigantic gene pool of Africa-Eurasia.

Meanwhile within the borders of Europe interbreeding was able to help the formation of great people in some cases. Look at the most successful nations of Europe: England, France and Germany and you will see that they all resulted from the interbreeding of Scandinavian Germanics and Western European Celts.

...

It's necessary for evolution.
youtu.be/hOfRN0KihOU

Thanks for cheering me up fellas. I don't know what I'd do if I had to face this faggotry alone.

>where's the sweet-spot, scientifically speaking?

second cousin

>have the same educational outcomes as if they were living with the biological parents, because it is entirely genetic, not environmental, that determines their intelligence.

I wouldn't go that deep down the rabbit hole. I was just saying race matters because culture matters and you can't dissociate them. There is no half-breed culture, you're either one or the other, which causes mixed kids a lot of identity issues by the way and is the reason so many are a mess.

There's more genetic diversity within any given ethnic group than between different ethnic groups anyways. There's no need to breed with outlanders, to artificially induce "diversity".

Of course it's all part of the liberal plot to try make God obsolete.

Ah, what exactly is a schpeschies?

t. Boon county trailer trash.

Love it mate, can I fuck yer cousin? Is she blonde with dank titties?

Different genes are better.
Inferior genes aren't.
Genetic diversity is just a perk that make the population globally more healthier, by diluting the prevalence of genetically diseases and improving the chance of standard diseases resistance.

... but it's not worth introducing very bad characteristics in a sane gene-pool.

I have a fuck-huge pastebin on this topic. It's been forever since I went through it so you'll have to search it a bit yourself.

pastebin.com/tGMEhbhf

>IQ is our example, a 100iq white and 80iq dindu will yield a roughly 90iq halfbreed
It is almost certainly not that simple. Genes are recessive or dominant, and their phenes can sometimes turn on or off due to environmental factors, which really throws a wrench in the works.

With regard to IQ, it is hard to say how much of it is genetic, and how much environmental. It may be that the offspring of two 100-level IQ parents can end up with 130 IQ, or 80 IQ. However, your point does stand in a basic sense; if a particular individual has inferior genes (inferior as determined by some artificial standards, since we don't exactly face too many serious selective pressures anymore) it would be irrational to mix with them and risk the offspring inheriting them.

Mixedrace children suffer from more health problems

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Racemixing leads to outbreeding depression & pairings of non-complementary traits.

A massively well-funded study of over 100,000 schoolchildren found that “Adolescents who identify themselves as mixed race are at higher health and behavior risk than those of 1 race.” Indeed, even when controlling for education, socioeconomic status, and other factors, there is an across-the board higher rate of health risks amongst mixed race adolescents than mono-racial adolescents.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

One study found that White-Asian mixes had a 2x higher rate of being “diagnosed with a psychological disorder, such as anxiety, depression or substance abuse.”

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/uoc--baa081108.php

A study on Black-White mixes in agreement found that ”When it comes to engaging in risky/anti-social adolescent behavior, however, mixed race adolescents are stark outliers compared to both blacks and whites.” This holds true despite being raised in similar environments to mono-racial children.

msu.edu/~renn/RHE-_mixed_race.pdf

Not every person shows behavioral modernity and the capability to live under certain norms. Random outbreeding with Africans could select against this and increase antisocial tendencies.

www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/677209

You don't breed lapdogs with large pitbulls either to improve on the lapdog quality of the dog. That's completely nonsensical.

No, she's married.

Everybody is pretty much mixed to some degree. Does he mention what sort of diseases? Because people can still get sick from infections, (Unless they have some kind of resistance, not necessarily genetic) and just because a person doesn't get sick it doesn't necessarily mean they are resistant since they could still be genetic carriers or reservoirs for the disease.

Honestly though. Genetics is not really something you can comprehensively cover in only three months/one semester. You can just tell him that all the shit he ate up in that time will be outdated information within five years. Even Ph.D students will tell you that.

Just going to pull a few things that look relevant.

A study in Iceland showed that 3rd cousin marriages are the most fertile and successful. Suggesting that mating within one's ethnic/racial group would be more beneficial than outside of one's ethnic/racial group.

sciencemag.org/content/319/5864/813.abstract

Exactly. This is how I tried to explain it.

So, say evolution is random. But then you have natural selection acting on top of the randomness to steer evolution in the correct direction.

Say, Macrogroup 1 (whites) are far ahead of Macrogroup 2 (blacks.) It would make no sense to reintroduce Macrogroup 1 genes back into MG2's genes, because there would be no point. But within MG1, then there would be a case for randomness (diversity) to promote the furtherance of the gene pool. So, within Macorgroup 1 (whites) there would be random mutations that would result in the betterment of that group, while natural selection would remove any adverse mutations.

Seems to me that reintroducing white genes into African genes would undo millennia of evolutionary progress?

Nice, that's my exact cup of tea.

We're setting ourselves up for a gigantic selection event. There are a shitload of mutations that have appeared within the human population, but we have not really allowed nature to do its thing on us. IMO, feeding people in third world shitholes and protecting the stupid from themselves is a bad idea.

>2R Allele of the VNTR region is a good start.

Here's a good one.

Hybrid vigor (heterosis) does not seem to apply to humans as we are already very heterozygous, at 0.776 [mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/7/707.full.pdf] Compared to dogs for example at 0.401. [eebweb.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol406R_506R/Garcia-Moreno1996-Wolf.pdf]

No, it's what scientists around the world have conceded from examining a mountain of evidence. Science is not just a body of facts but a way of looking at the world. It's about interrogating the universe to figure out how it actually is and not just what you think it is or wish it to be.

Besides evolution doesn't necessarily refute the existence of God. If you think of the universe as a massive computer simulation then it basically means that God designed the universe to procedurally generate everything within it instead of designing every single rock, tree, or animal just like the various environments on the quintillions of planets in No Man's Sky were procedurally generated.

>How's about "can't fix that bone cancer" problem?

Lol, damn skypes will just fabricate any bogus claim they want. Sociology is a pseudoscience.

>Or Obvious IQ differences?

The neurotransmitter oxytocin "makes people more co-operative, benevolent, loyal, generous and trusting of others. It is involved in the parent-child bond - new mothers and fathers have raised levels of oxytocin. Production also increases when people hug and when they have sex and, recent research suggests, when they receive psychological warmth." However, oxytocin has been alleged to "foster racism."

guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/30/bright-ideas-oxytocin-hormone-racism

The study found that "intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence… Which maybe modulated by brain oxytocin." This suggests that the instinctual desire to pursue the interests of one's own ethnic group to further ensure the existence of one's people is linked to racial bias, coinciding with the observation that diversity is a weakness, not a strength.

pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/06/1015316108

One study found that during the menstrual cycle when women have a higher likeihood of conception, racial bias is increased, especially when the likeihood of sexual intercourse was increased; "increased conception risk was positively associated with several measures of race bias. This association was particularly strong when perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion was high."

The only whites that probably shouldn't interbreed within their own specific ethnicity are Anglos. Anglos probably stayed a bit too long on their little island and do look a bit inbred. Plus their genes are just shit in general. But they don't need Somalis to mix with, they'd be fine mixing with Central Europeans or French or Spanish people.

I had classes on genetics too, and your friend wasn't taught the opposite to inbreeding, which is outbreeding.

Species have a range of genetics a to survive in it's environmental niche, such as pale skin in far north regions. The genotype of said species is fundamental to it's survival, which is termed as fitness.

When you introduce genes into this previously isolated population, you essentially collapse what was their genetic house of cards, reducing fitness.

Outbreeding is an important point to make in conservation, because they will not introduce sub species to another to maintain the natural biodiversity.

Although humans have an artificially created niche, advanced societies are a byproduct of out genetics so the introduction of a stupider and more aggressive populace would destroy our ability to survive.

Your friend is an idiot, if you read and explain what I have just said, and he still refutes it, cut contact.

>interbreed
>environmental conditions and selective pressures favor inbreed offspring

boom there goes your bullshit theory

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

Japan is a perfect example of why racial diversity is important. Japan's population is one of the most homogeneous in the world. Because of that rare genetic diseases such as xeroderma pigmentosum are ten times more common there than in the rest of the world.

In modern society, probably 50%-70% of IQ is going to be attributed to genetics. Environmental factors can only let you live up to your genetic potential, but not exceed it. They can also fuck it up, i.e. poor childhood nutrition, no education, etc... Those are less of an issue in the developed world than they are in places like Africa. Another issue in poor places is how often people have children with close relatives. 3rd cousin isn't a big deal, but 1st cousin (or closer) is going to eventually wreck your gene pool if enough people do it. Look at the Muslim world, where we can measure this indirectly via marriages. How many people in Sub Saharan Africa do you suppose fuck their cousins?

Literally "what is moderation" the post

eupedia.com/forum/threads/31688-More-on-the-Genetic-Cost-of-Neanderthal-Introgression

>As Paabo explains it:
>"The team determined that Europeans who lived between 37,000 and 14,000 years ago were part of a single founding population that didn’t significantly interbreed with other populations. Since the drop in Neanderthal DNA couldn’t be explained by population mixing, the authors argue that the genetic material was forced out through natural selection.Further evidence bolstered this theory when the researchers found that Neanderthal DNA got culled more often near genes than in other parts of the genome.
>“The Neanderthal population, because of its small size, may have accumulated many slightly bad mutations,” said Pääbo. “It has taken tens of thousands of years to remove them from the modern human population, and it may still be going on.”
broadinstitute.org/news/8150

...

one more

OP, see these:
Ought to give you some ammo.

The concerns about inbreeding are bullshit too. The population needs to be absolutely tiny for it to be a legitimate issue unless we have a bunch of brothers and sisters getting married. Besides, there was a population bottleneck of what, 15,000 people at one point, from which we all came from after the ice age? Something like that. Anyways, hope this all helps.

Never heard of flinders mate.. I learnt that shit in year 12.. Anyway. Here's my argument to you. If the African-American population has people with low, average and above average IQs. And there are African nations with less high IQ individuals and more low IQ individuals. Then the reason is not genetic but economic.
ie. If your sister had a child with Robert Mugabe he/she would likely have an average intelligence at least. But if your sister is as dumb as you..

>Genetic "Diversity"

Cheers, mate. Will look in the morning. Getting late here.

Nah, genetics influences IQ greater than environmental factors.

Adoption/family studies show the above user is right.

Mutts have an IQ thats inbetween the parents. That goes for Asians/white mixes too. Thats regardless of which parents are raising them.

Also, for OP:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

Thats more or less the flip coin of inbreeding. If you breed TOO FAR, your children end up being "less suited" for the environment for either environment. Essentially, you get the WORSER of both worlds. There have been studies that show that mixed race children are worse in every social indicicator as well.

Or you can just bring up Ligers and Mules (again, bred too far).

>Asians
>intelligent

when will this meme end?

gimmie a tl:dr on that graph

>The population needs to be absolutely tiny for it to be a legitimate issue unless we have a bunch of brothers and sisters getting married.

Or 1st cousins getting married left and right. Like in the Muslim world. An estimated 30%-50% of Muslims are the product of a consanguineous marriage. The population doesn't need to be tiny, it just needs to not have a large percentage fucking their 1st cousins and siblings.

>Mutts have an IQ thats inbetween the parents. That goes for Asians/white mixes too.
Sauce for this, by any chance? Feeling too lazy to look it up myself today.

>genetic diverstiy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

>5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carried the 2R allele
>An association between the 2R allele of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.

>a literal google gene

I aint no cuck.

>conquers half of the world
>brings the world into modernity
>shit genes

Yeah, you ain't but yer sister sure is! Hohoho

>when the mean value for white people is at 100
RACISM DEFINED

...

That doesn't mean much honestly.

there is such a thing as under breeding.

and out breeding which is what is happening to whites.

we are just going to be a sea of generic brown slurry soon.

hopefully whites will reform at some point but i doubt it

we treat ourselves like niggers so thats probably what we'll get treated like before this dumbfuck century is over

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15994621
>Adverse perinatal outcomes among interracial couples in the United States.
Considering there are more problems right out of the gate, until...
economist.com/news/business/21692865-making-most-workplace-diversity-requires-hard-work-well-good-intentions-diversity
>Diversity fatigue: Making the most of workplace diversity requires hard work as well as good intentions
... right until the end
Diversity =/= magic
Diversity is a challenge
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger
That's what diversity actually is
You'll see more diverse children as successful film stars and renowned scientists compared to general population...
You'll also see more diverse children in mental and handicapped institutions compared to general population.

>t.swe-

Oh you're actually from Sweden, carry on

It's obvious.
Whites, even one of the various white ethnic groups(english, germans, serbs, etc.) already have diversity enough to not bring problems that inbreeding causes.

I remember that thread. Someone brought up Brazil as a reason why a race mixed country is a shit country. He responds with the how Brazilian models are some of the best ignoring that fact that most Brazilian models are pure white.

Speaking of Brazil, it just so haoppens that the most liveable parts of Brazil are the white dominant ones (the south).

Unfortnately, its something I read in passing and didnt bother to save.

What's that supposed to mean? Please apologize.

He's right in a sense. Eye, skin, and hair color are just a matter of aesthetics at this point. There are more important racial genes to preserve, like resistance to disease, IQ, social behavior, or even lactose tolerance.

Not going extinct in one go when a big epidemic hits is a pretty good and very direct one.

A wide range of genetic diversity allows the species to withstand changes in its living conditions. A too-narrowly specialized species, like great pandas or the grass-eating hominid Paranthropus boisei will go extinct the moment their only source of food dies out. At the extreme end there are island populations of parthenogenous lizards that are literally all clones of one another. A disease that they're all susceptible makes landfall and they're all gone.

The more variability you have, the more likely it is that some subset of the population will be able to ride out the calamity in question. Humans have withstood near-extinction events again and again because they're both genetically and more recently culturally able to switch it up when things go to shit.

Your women are sexy, Sven. Don't worry. :-)

I honestly came in here to stick up for the black guy because it seems pretty unfair how Cred Forums treats them.
I learned so much just reading this thread.. So much and it's sort of fucking up the idea of political correctness. At least in my head.
/redpill'd

>black British
Literally no such thing. Is she Somali? Ethiop? Kenyan? The particular ethnicity actually matters here.

hybrid breakdown

Genetic diversity is only good insofar as it helps boost immune systems, and keeps the LOCAL gene pool freshened up every once in a while. I took a class in bioethics that was heavy on the SJW stuff but still managed to drop some hard fucking facts, including the fact that people of "mixed heritage", meaning parents from different ethnic backgrounds, are actually at a disadvantage when it comes to blood typing, treatments for diseases like cancer and HIV, and generally are fucked in the event of major blood loss or organ transplant. What's really interesting about this, though, is that "ethnic background" does not mean "race", it has to do with the age and the spread of the genetic pool you come from. The youngest gene pool is "white", meaning most people of European heritage can easily replace limbs, organs, blood, have gene therapy, very easily due to the closeness of their genetics. Black people, on the other hand, have the oldest gene group, which means that the genetic diversity in their group (spread all throughout Africa, plus the effects of the slave trade) totally fucks them over without being mixed.

Diversity in the sense of "race mixing" is therefore not good for the survival of human life on Earth or in space.

Holy shit mind blown to outer spase.

Good stuff, mingey scallywag, now get down to your local barber and get a fash haircut, ya propellerhead.

Diversify is genetically good. I would guess the trade-off in intelligence would be more than made up for in health and fertility. What you should tell your friend is, if he thinks this is such a good idea, he should fuck off to the Congo and fight Aids and malaria and have 10 kids with an African woman there where he can improve things the most instead of destroying Europe with mass immigration.

True but the state of most African countries is not ideal for reaching genetic potential.

Sorry but most Anglos are ugly, fucked up looking people. They die younger than continental Europeans, and could probably do with a little mixing from their French cousins in Normandy and Saxony.

Anglo culture is by far the best culture. Common law and the allodial title system is the foundation of modern society. But they're kinda like pure bred dogs. A lot of diseases within the population and adding some new genes into the breed would make them healthier even if it would slightly dull some of the instincts that made them great.

This is probably why they have been surpassed by their colony in America that is still Anglo dominated,(although skypes are taking over) but with a healthy mix of other Europeans. Once you start adding mestizo and African into the mix though it's all going to shit.

That kind of diversity across the human species is good insofar as if every advanced civilization was suddenly wiped out by a virus or an alien invasion, we would have a backup stock of animal stalking naturalists and carrion scrapers to carry on and give us another shot at evolution.

But of course mixing with them would destroy a. the diversity, b. the evolutionary advances we've made in the last 40,000 years or so.

Basically while privilege is real, only because of our culture of group cooperation and exploration. Other ethnic groups that have developed over the years are equally based in certain character traits which then become cultural staples, which continue the development and so on; it took a small group of proto-yuropoors to say "fuck this seasonal desert" and head northwest, which over time gave an advantage culturally to their offspring, which continued through Greece and then Roman times. My personal theory is that with the welfare state collapse of Rome came a great discouragement for the Europeans, which forced them back to smaller group conquest (feudalism) and the dark ages. Luckily the Turks and Moors gave them a challenge and they woke the fuck up after 700 years of decadence and petty infighting/inbreeding, and they set sail westward once more, discovering and MAINTAINING (not just sightseeing) the new world. The end.

Meanwhile in Africa, feudalism at its smallest scale continued, and then we got "Zulu".

Diversity is a strength when you breed among superior high IQ races for desired first world traits.

youtube.com/watch?v=Zsh_b70NSFQ

youtube.com/watch?v=6lsa_97KIlc

youtube.com/watch?v=CZPsXYo7gpc

youtube.com/watch?v=MxXPA9ZnDCc

youtube.com/watch?v=4Tg0ONGlk00

I'm breeding some corn, and am working with some very genetically diverse plants. If you want to see the effects of genetic diversity vs the environment in real time, try corn. The diversity is good in the sense that if there is an environmental change, there are probably going to be a number of individuals that are close enough to adapted to survive, but it will never be as productive as hybrids under carefully cultivated conditions.

You also get to see that some combinations flat out don't work, and you ruthlessly select against them. Cobs moving higher year after year because raccoons eat the low hanging ones with stalks that aren't sturdy enough to support cobs up high is one such combination that doesn't work. On the flip side, I live in the high desert, and I bet that my corn is more drought tolerant than most others.

You get to see changes in corn over several years that would take centuries to see in humans. It's not exactly the same, but the processes involved are similar enough to draw some conclusions.

The genetic diversity is good for my purposes, but once the diversity goes too far away from being adapted to my environment, it gets selected against, either by me, or by nature. Humans like to think that we're special, but the same broad concept does apply to us as an entire population.

White race is the only diverse race, white alelees are recessive hence the one drop rule.

Friendly reminder that humans have one of, if not the smallest gene pools amongst mammals. You can take 2 chimps from the same forest and they will be related further apart than a European and an Eskimo. Why do you think we have so many hereditary diseases and genetic defects compared to other animals? You don't see a sloth with cerebral palsy

>You don't see a sloth with cerebral palsy
We also don't let individuals with cerebral palsy (which isn't in of itself hereditary, but the consensus is that there are likely genetic predispositions for it) die off, which is why we see more instances of it in humans.

>What I don't get is: he is saying that the best thing for a European to do is to breed with a Sub-Saharan African.

Fuck no, unless said sub-saharan African is way above average intelligence. Generally it's even then hit and miss in genetic lottery. Also there are things like unusual combinations of genes controlling immunity system, if mixed race person gets cancer requiring bone marrow transplant or something requiring organ transplant, finding donors may be nearly impossible.

(((Alon Ziv)))

Every fucking time.

>why the hell is that a good idea

It's not. Biologists with agendas often neglect to mention basic principles of biology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

You would have seen individuals with cerebral palsy die off during Roman times. Parents were supposed to kill any seriously deformed child back then. I suspect that this was even more true during our hunter gatherer days. Serious defects would have put a strain on the group and would have threatened other people's lives.

Genetic diversity isn't really an issue for humans in any case, compared to most animals we have quite a bit of variation and very large gene pools not to mention genetic drift. Also any challenges such as disease, genetic disorders and less than average ability can be completely negated by medicine and science. We aren't subject to natural selection any more.

Again, cerebral palsy is not directly caused by any gene. It's a result of brain injury during development. Now, genes that influence the likelihood of it may exist (whether as a single gene, or more likely some combination of them), but even so the rate of cerebral palsy is likely not high enough for those genes to disappear from the gene pool.

It is almost certain that there existed genes for heritable diseases that were so effective in their expression that they drove themselves to extinction. The ones we have now were evidently not so effective, given their continued existence in the gene pool.

lmao, that Callooh_Calais guy's questions are on point

It looks like your mate is going to upgrade her diversity.
Just take that deep breath and picture Cassandra watching her own civilization crumbling.

>they drove themselves to extinction
On that subject, allegedly some of the earliest strains of syphilis brought over to Europe from the New World were so deadly that many victims died before they could successfully spread it, and less potent ones ended up surviving and becoming the disease we have now.

Jews are the most inbred people of all, though. Why isn't he spreading the good news to his brethren? (((They))) need it more than we do.

Look up "hybrid vigor".
It only last a couple generations, then garbage genes coalesce.
By definition, advanced genes are mutations, and as such are usually recessive.
Mutt dogs always turn out like dingos after a few generations, there are no specializations left.

>or in space

Don't worry about it Poland, you can't get there anyway.

Too bad then, because according to him, we are the best candidates.