you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Rhesus negative blood isn't the result of diversity breeding. It can occur even if both parents are from the same ethnic community.

I would hope that there is better evidence than this for the white separation case.

If this is it then the "whiteness" position is created on a bedrock of wet sand.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

nonsense, tom. Rhesus negative is a distinct breeding trait. Its been mixed back in again 10,000 years ago, but rhesus negative and positive crossbreeding killed a lot of babies/mothers until last century.

Maybe go read some non-woke sources to get genetic reality on that one.

and You are the one who brought 'whiteness' into it, I merely gave an example of speciation between humans. That we now have a technological solution for the cross-species issues doesn't stop them being there.

Seems to me you are bringing some pre-conceived 'white' / 'non-white' prejudice into it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Source?

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1706434/pdf/ajhg00380-0068.pdf

You'll have to forgive me for being skeptical of a 55 year old genetics study.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/PL00006583

Evolution of Rh Blood Group Genes Have Experienced Gene Conversions and Positive Selection

This paper compares the Rh group among primates.
Are you making an africans are similar to monkeys comparison? Because chimpanzees often have male patterned baldness. Are bald men more similar to chimpanzees than men with hair?

Conversely non-Africans have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. There's an argument that can be made that Africans are the most human of all of us.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/01/more-neanderthal-dna-than-you-think/

The genetic fingerprints of this mixing remain apparent in many populations today. Roughly two percent of the genomes of Europeans and Asians are Neanderthal. Asians also carry additional Denisovan DNA, up to 6 percent in Melanesians. But African populations seemed to have largely been left out of this genetic shakeup.

I wonder how the Africans feel about having their kin's blood contaminated with the primitive Neanderthal and Denisovan blood.

The genetic facts appear undermine the white blood theory, cause it turns out that the Africans are actually the pure bloods.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.04199.x

I don't think it's appropriate to continue to slander the pure-blood africans.

etc.

Conclusion: DNA evidence strongly suggests that the only true pure blood whites are African Albinos.

Everyone else is a Denisovan or Neanderthal muggle mudblood.

Hopefully we can learn from our ancestors, because sex with other species/races seems to have worked out fairly well. You're probably missing out... ;-)

It's all good cause Harry Potter was half-muggle. The white blood idea is a similar fantasy.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

i'm not sure what your argument is?

i provided clear evidence linking Rh- to limited/single mutation & on going breeding/death to produce genetically diverse populations, rh+ and rh-

you seem to be having another discussion based on some kind of race bait.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

My argument is that the rheses genetic factor may be real, but it's seemingly trivial in it's impact.

So trivial that its only impact that I'm aware of is an argument for race seperations.

If we want to have divisive race discussions then let's discuss some concrete and statistically significant factor.

The largest distinguishing genetic factor actually works against your position of white elitism.

So, either take a position of biological objectivity and recognize Africans as more biologically human than the rest (and better at sports), or accept that the differences are skin deep and that were all equals.

That seems like a reasonable conclusion; given the biological evidence.

My position is that we are all equals, and the idea of race is foolish.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

it is far from trivial. It leads to death when Rh+ and Rh- interbreed.

The very core of speciation - nonviable offspring.

We've overcome the issue with technology, but before that it was a huge problem.

You are the one who has got so hung up on other arguments that you've lost sight of the science.

your position of white elitism

Excuse me, but go fuck yourself. I've never said anything remotely like that.

My position is that we are all equals, and the idea of race is foolish.

I get that. It is quite clear. It is an emotional position, but whatever. genetics are real.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

your position of white elitism

Excuse me, but go fuck yourself. I've never said anything remotely like that.

It was my impression that your rheses position was in defense of the posted subject matter.

Is Diversity Destroying the Unique Souls of Whites?

Can this statement be understood as something other than white elitism?

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

you asked for an example of speciation, so I gave you one. You've then projected a ton of shit onto me, and onto the subject, whilst being dishonest about it.

we are all unique. All different, all unique. Eliteism is what you've brought. Take your prejudice elsewhere