Author Topic: Are blacks turning white tru generations??  (Read 397 times)

Noname

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2384
  • Karma: 307
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2006, 01:17:52 PM »
Not if I can help it.

no trust me u are white as fuck. real black niggas respect other real people no matter their race. the fact u are so racist gives away your uncle tom caucasian upbringin. youre like bryan infinite, just a poser. in your case posing as a black man

he already admitted it's all a joke..

The GOD is mystic.  I'm having constant dreams that I'm Constantine.

if the jokes over why hasnt he stopped?


we need another eihtball post like we need another Brooke Hogan album

LMAO

So does that mean, he is actually a suburban white boy,  posing as a black man?
 

IRAN iz Gangsta!

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 801
  • Karma: -59
  • Up in Yo bitch iz where you might find me!
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2006, 03:59:08 PM »
nah mixed gurl are real nice and unique, i've dated a chinese-indian-african-canadian chick once, she had them lips just like angelina jolie and those green eyes and her ass was crazy


Yea i know what you mean...I LOVE MUTS!

 

Z the laidback Virus

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1881
  • Karma: 50
  • I'm as laidback as possible without being high
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2006, 04:11:42 PM »
People,

it's a pity this thread turned into such a display of banality. I'll try to put it back on track.

Skintone is of course genetic, but nevertheless, climate does greatly influence it, over the generations. The reason different skin colours (and other racial characteristics) have come to be, is that they were beneficial in a specific environment.

In open,tropical areas it's beneficial to have a dark skin, which doesn't absorb UV-light as well and thus decreases the chance of skin cancer. In hot moist air, broad noses are more efficient. This is because the air is already warm and moist when it enters the nostrils. For people in colder climates, having a long and narrow nose meant cold and dry air could more quickly be heated up and moisterized when it was inhaled and heading for the sensitive lungs.

This is why black people, not only the ones of African ancestry, but black people such as the Aborigines of Australia as well, are black with generally broad noses. This is not definite, and black people in America can't be used as a proper example because all have at least some white ancestry, wether they like it or not. A 'pure' (for lack on another word) African-American person does not exist in America. Neither are many whites purely white. Many have black or native American ancestry.BUT with a larger population of whites tracing ancestry from immigrants that came from Europe, where mixed ancestry used to be really rare, for centuries, it's only logical that more whites are 'pure' whites then blacks that are 'pure' black. If only for reasons of probability,especially in America's early centuries, it was much easier for whites to find a white partner then it used to be for blacks to find a black partner.
 
Anyways, eventhough the selection pressure on urban humans isn't very high; we would rather be selected for our ability to cross the streets or avoid being murdered then for our ability to inhale air, the selection pressure for skin colour and say, nose shape, hasn't been removed. It's just working more slowly, as it can't make people die as easily as it did before.
Nevertheless, whites in tropical countries are more likely to catch skin cancer then they are in a country such as Sweden. In the same way, blacks are at a respiratory disadvantage in countries with cold winters. I don't have definite numbers to back up this statement, but I suspect pneumonia and bronchitis will afflict black people living in such countries more often then it will afflict whites.

And last,as an example, I will give you a small history lesson. In medieval times, some 1000 years ago, the country of Portugal (a Mediterranean country inhabited by generally white people (or at least what most people would call white)) was under the rule of the Mores. The Mores were a black muslim people from Africa. Hundreds, even thousands of Mores are likely to have lived and spread their genes in a country rather unfriendly to their tropically-adapted bodies. This means that many Portuguese will have black ancestors, perhaps all do. Yet, now, some 1000 years later, nothing is to be seen of that. What's more, 500 years ago, the Portuguese were far from black. Vasco de Game and Magelhaes would have looked like someone from southern France rather then someone from Congo or Guinnee-Bissau. This was actually less then 500 years after More rule. The Mores had been driven out of the region only little time before 1500, having been fought back for more then a century and only losing out in 1486,if I'm not mistaken.

Conclusion: A few centuries from now, people will all look like what the original people of their part of the globe looked like. Unless climates drastically change or massive migration and mixing all over the world occurs. But even they won't stop people from adapting to their surroundings, so to speak.


I hope this will be enough to get this thread running again!
Z knows about ALL your inner conflicts..
 

MontrealCity's Most

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8074
  • Karma: 586
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2006, 02:57:53 PM »
nah mixed gurl are real nice and unique, i've dated a chinese-indian-african-canadian chick once, she had them lips just like angelina jolie and those green eyes and her ass was crazy

est ou elle
 

Narrator

  • Guest
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2006, 04:01:58 PM »
So does that mean, he is actually a suburban white boy,  posing as a black man?

Nope.  I am Blackman.  I am GOD.
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
yes they are...
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2006, 07:43:23 PM »
(Z the laidback Virus) - Skintone is of course genetic, but nevertheless, climate does greatly influence it, over the generations. The reason different skin colours (and other racial characteristics) have come to be, is that they were beneficial in a specific environment.

this is not true.  the lightest europeans are lighter than they need to be.  you don't compare the whitest european to the darkest africans, you compare then to the "olive skinned" mediteraneans.  there they don't have a genetic advantage.  the lightest skin tones are not a result of natural selection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html
The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.

Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.

Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.


sexual selection...not natural selection...

(Z the laidback Virus) - Conclusion: A few centuries from now, people will all look like what the original people of their part of the globe looked like.

this is also not true.  you'll notice that this did not happen with indigenous populations in south america...etc.  the incas were not black, or even darker than their neighbors...

(Trauma-san) - I think Melanin is a dominant gene so if anything interracial children would tend to be darker than plain white people

melanin is a pigment produced by the pineal gland, not a gene :) 

melanin constitution and production is governed by a combination of genes; and while mixed children will be darker than their white parent, they typically will be much lighter than their black parent. 
black skin color is actually very fragile for this reason, as it is a combination of genes that are needed to produce darker skin tones, and it is very easy to disrupt these combinations.  which is why in american black families you will frequently see siblings of significantly different skin tones.
once these combinations of genes are disrupted within a population, it's hard for them to reappear with the same potency.  which is one reason why the indigenous tribes in south america aren't as dark as africans. 


(Z the laidback Virus) - This is why black people, not only the ones of African ancestry, but black people such as the Aborigines of Australia as well, are black with generally broad noses.

the aboriginals of australia are originally african.  one of the earliest populations to migrate out.  similarly the dravidians in india are originally african and migrated out around 8000 bc.  after the last ice age. 
« Last Edit: December 12, 2006, 07:45:38 PM by nibs »
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

Z the laidback Virus

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1881
  • Karma: 50
  • I'm as laidback as possible without being high
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2006, 03:19:49 AM »
Dear nibs, we are ALL African.

The time the ancestor of the aboriginals moved out of Africa, the ancestors of everyone else did too. In fact, it might well have been the same person.
Z knows about ALL your inner conflicts..
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2006, 08:29:03 AM »
(Z the laidback Virus) - Dear nibs, we are ALL African.

you are absolutely correct here.

(Z the laidback Virus) - The time the ancestor of the aboriginals moved out of Africa, the ancestors of everyone else did too. In fact, it might well have been the same person.

this is not correct.  there were multiple migrations out of africa, at different time periods.  the most recent migration was around 10,000bc.  earlier migrations were around 20,000 bc (asia/north america) and 60,000 bc (europe).  as populations migrated out of africa they frequently would encounter groups that had migrated out at an earlier phase.

recent studies have shown that europeans and west africans only share 95% genetic material, as european ancestors intermixed with populations already in that area...etc.

"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

Z the laidback Virus

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1881
  • Karma: 50
  • I'm as laidback as possible without being high
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2006, 07:37:36 AM »
The point is, they weren't in Australia straight from Africa and as you said, they would have met others elsewhere. The Asian populations (and we are talking about Asia spanning from Arabia up to deep Indonesia) they would have met and mingled with were unlikely to be black, and the climate would have been anti-black as well. As a result, they would have been far from black when they came close to Australia. I won't say when they entered Australia, because they may have been turning back into black before that, as they came close to the equator. I am not saying they only became black after entering Australia. But they would have been black after being white (or whiter, at least) in the past.

It is only logical Africa has more genetic variation. It is the cradle of humans. Humans have thus been there the longest and consequently, genetic variation had more time to evolve then it had elsewhere.

As for South America, since their indigenous peoples weren't black but they did live in equatorial areas, the environment must have been somewhat different. I'm actually thinking of deep, shaded jungles now. You will have noticed that Bushmen living in shaded forests in Africa aren't black either. The typical black African is more of a plains person.


..And another thing, the guy who said he felt that whites had to be punished for slavery and that he wasn't racist but justified...You must be joking!
If you think that having the innocent descendants suffer for something their ancestors did to your ancestors long ago is justice, you are misguided. Also, considering most black people in America (and probably you too) are descendants of those that practised slavery, you would have to punish yourself too. But I guess you don't think a black person should ever be punished for something one white ancestors of his did? You are racist through and through.
Z knows about ALL your inner conflicts..
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2006, 08:32:01 AM »
(Z the laidback Virus) - The point is, they weren't in Australia straight from Africa and as you said, they would have met others elsewhere. The Asian populations (and we are talking about Asia spanning from Arabia up to deep Indonesia) they would have met and mingled with were unlikely to be black

i believe this was one of the first populations to migrate out of africa.  thus, they wouldn't have run into lighter asians.
it's my understanding that most asian populations actually encountered these black populations as they migrated into the indian subcontinent and into the orient.
then after the asians were established a second, smaller, black population migrated in through much of the area later.  this was around 9000bc.
there was a later migration of caucasian populations around 2000bc.
most of these people reflect 3 or 4 waves of major migrations.

(Z the laidback Virus) - the climate would have been anti-black as well.

the climate argument has never been proven, it's only a theory.
the theory here is also unlikely, as most black populations have migrated east to water; and where there is water there is fish.  vitamin d is found in many fatty fish.

(Z the laidback Virus) - As a result, they would have been far from black when they came close to Australia

there is no reason to believe this at all..  your theory is they turned light and then turned dark again?  populations simply don't change skin tone like this.
you haven't proven that these populations migrated through non black populations.
migrating past a population doesn't lighten that migrators.  they need to stop and stay for a period and intermix.
you have constructed an implausible scenario to support the theory you want to believe.  the evidence simply isn't with you.
you can't point to any evidence ever of this happening. 

(Z the laidback Virus) - As for South America, since their indigenous peoples weren't black but they did live in equatorial areas, the environment must have been somewhat different. I'm actually thinking of deep, shaded jungles now. You will have noticed that Bushmen living in shaded forests in Africa aren't black either. The typical black African is more of a plains person.

again, the evidence here is contradicting your theory, and you are creating an explanation.
the truth is there is no evidence of skin tone fluctuating back and forth from climate.  i provided you a like stating that the skin tone in europe is not natural selection, but sexual selection, thus choice.  a conscious effort.

(Z the laidback Virus) - the guy who said he felt that whites had to be punished for slavery and that he wasn't racist but justified...You must be joking!
If you think that having the innocent descendants suffer for something their ancestors did to your ancestors long ago is justice, you are misguided.


he's actually 100% correct.  traditional african knowledge indicates that you reincarnate into the lineage of your descendents.  thus, the sins of the father are a burden for the sons.  the indigenous populations of the america and also asian populations had this same knowledge. 
people are in denial thinking they can get away from those past crimes.

(Z the laidback Virus) - - Also, considering most black people in America (and probably you too) are descendants of those that practised slavery, you would have to punish yourself too. But I guess you don't think a black person should ever be punished for something one white ancestors of his did?

ultimately everyone will have to account for their past.
these europeans continue to profit and benefit for wealth, power and influence they accumulated through their crimes.
ultimately they will be punished for these crimes as well.
really it's not a big deal to argue over.  people can try to make amends for the sins of their ancestors and figure out how to remove that yoke, or suffer the consequences.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2006, 08:35:48 AM by nibs »
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

Z the laidback Virus

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1881
  • Karma: 50
  • I'm as laidback as possible without being high
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2006, 05:25:27 PM »
You can't possibly be serious! Following that logic, I should have to pay for my great-grandfather being the skirt-chasing unfaithful husbaund he was. In the same vein, it would make modern Africans just as guilty of slavery.

I repeat: You can NOT hold descendants accountable for something their ancestors did.


And, reversals are common in nature. The skin-colour isn't much of a problem.

Aborigine ancestors might have been the first to leave Africa. But still, they wouldn't be in Australia like immediately and would have to pass through untropical climate zones. This whole migration event would have taken place in the Pleistocene, the period of the Ice Ages. I know not all of the world was covered in ice then, far from that. But most of Asia would have been temperate or at best subtropical. Not conductive to maintaining the physical adaptions of the black body to tropical heat in open terrains.

You might think I am twisting the facts about Indians to support what I'm saying, BUT you would have to admit that living in shaded, if tropical, rainforest is far different from living in open areas. The UV-radiation you get exposed to is very different.

Now let us look at the tropical people in the vicinity of the aborigines. Papuas. Papuas are far from black, yet apparently you do think they would have to have descended from black people. This in itself wouldn't be much of a problem, if only you hadn't said skin-colour can't change much. Papuas are comparable with African pygmies and South-American Indians in being tropical people living in shaded,forest environments. A prime example of convergent evolution within the human species. Or are you actually under the impression that another African group of decidedly lighter skin colour evolved and then spread out of Africa (where some remained), into Oceania and then into the Amazon region? Not very likely, considering how Amazonian Indians clearly belong to the native American group, which is as a whole most closely related to Asian mongoloid people.
Papuans, on the other hand, belong to the Austronesian group, as can be seen here:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_people
Pygmies' relationships are more mysterious but I doubt they are Austronesian or native American or even close to either.

Skin colour is prone to change when climate and conditions make it advantageous for it to happen. It is just as much a climate-related adaption as is the Inuit bodyshape.

Now I would like you to read this, about the Mexican tetra and some of its populations:

Blind cave form
A. mexicanus is famous for its blind cave form, which is known by such names as blind cave tetra, blind tetra, and blind cavefish. Some thirty distinct populations of Mexican tetras live in deep caves and have lost the power of sight and even their eyes. These fish can still, however, find their way around by means of their lateral lines, which are highly sensitive to fluctuating water pressure.

The eyed and eyeless forms of A. mexicanus, being members of the same species, are closely related and can interbreed. Astyanax jordani, however, is another blind cave fish, independently and recently evolved from the sighted surface form, which is sometimes confused with the cave form of A. mexicanus.[3]


[edit] Evolution research
The surface and cave forms of the Mexican tetra have proven popular subjects for scientists studying evolution.

A recent study suggests that there are at least two distinct genetic lineages among the blind populations, arguing that these represent a case of convergent evolution.[4]

In one experiment studying eye development, University of Maryland scientists transplanted lenses from the eyes of sighted surface-form embryos into blind cave-form embryos, and vice-versa. In the cave form, lens development begins within the first 24 hours of embryonic development, but quickly aborts, the lens cells dying; most of the rest of the eye structures never develop. Researchers found that the lens seemed to control the development of the rest of the eye, as the surface-form tetras which received cave-form lenses failed to develop eyes, while cave-form tetras which received surface-form lenses grew eyes with pupils, corneas, and irises. (It is not clear whether they possessed sight, however.)[


If these fish can lose their eyes and become albinos in a matter of generations,and they do; their cave systems aren't very old and they certainly wouldn't have been cave-adapted before entering their caves, and can do so at least two times independently it is very preposterous to think skin colour in humans can't change and develop in convergent ways as well, seeing this is a much less drastic deviation.


Z knows about ALL your inner conflicts..
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2006, 09:24:37 PM »
(Z the laidback Virus) - You can't possibly be serious! Following that logic, I should have to pay for my great-grandfather being the skirt-chasing unfaithful husbaund he was.

it's possible that someone already has.

(Z the laidback Virus) - In the same vein, it would make modern Africans just as guilty of slavery.

possibly to a less extent, seeing as the abominable treatment was carried out by europeans.
africans have suffered european colonization and exploitation, so many west african nations have been paying the price for something.
my brothers will see brighter days, however.

(Z the laidback Virus) - I repeat: You can NOT hold descendants accountable for something their ancestors did.

yes i can.
americans and europeans are still reaping the benefits from their crimes of colonization and slavery.  they genocided native americans as well.  they have alot that they will be held accountable for.

(Z the laidback Virus) - Aborigine ancestors might have been the first to leave Africa. But still, they wouldn't be in Australia like immediately and would have to pass through untropical climate zones.

skin color simply doesn't change as you are suggesting.  all you have here is an unfounded theory.  theoretically your argument is weak as it requires mutations to occur and then spread, and then the reverse to be true.  scientists have stated that the spread of white skin among europeans was too quick and unnatural, and a social phenomenon.  the scientists in the article undermine and defeat your argument.  it's that simple.

 (Z the laidback Virus) - You might think I am twisting the facts about Indians to support what I'm saying, BUT you would have to admit that living in shaded, if tropical, rainforest is far different from living in open areas. The UV-radiation you get exposed to is very different.

the bottom line is their skin tone undermines your theory.  it certainly doesn't support it, which is why you look for further explanations as to their tone.

 (Z the laidback Virus) - Now let us look at the tropical people in the vicinity of the aborigines. Papuas. Papuas are far from black, yet apparently you do think they would have to have descended from black people.

the fact that they are far from black is another flaw in your theory, not mine.

 (Z the laidback Virus) - This in itself wouldn't be much of a problem, if only you hadn't said skin-colour can't change much. Papuas are comparable with African pygmies and South-American Indians in being tropical people living in shaded,forest environments.

african pygmies are black, but in a shaded forest environment.  this continues to undermine your explanation for the natives in south america.  similar environment, different complexion.
i never said "skin color can't change much"; i said climate doesn't change skin color.  intermixing & sexual selection are what changes skin color.

(Z the laidback Virus) - are you actually under the impression that another African group of decidedly lighter skin colour evolved and then spread out of Africa (where some remained), into Oceania and then into the Amazon region?

according to your link (wikipedia) the papaus migrated from china to australia.  we don't know what color they were in china, or what color they were leaving africa or passing through asia.  the bottom line is there is no evidence that climate changed their skin color.

(Z the laidback Virus) - Skin colour is prone to change when climate and conditions make it advantageous for it to happen. It is just as much a climate-related adaption as is the Inuit bodyshape.

skin color has never been proven to be as advantageous as body type.  every known population that has changed it's skin color has done so because of migrations and intermixing.
scientists are telling you that white skin in europe was a result of sexual selection and not natural selection. 
there is no evidence that skin color has ever changed because of climate.  only theories.  all the evidence that we actually have points to the contrary.

(Z the laidback Virus) - If these fish can lose their eyes and become albinos in a matter of generations,and they do; their cave systems aren't very old and they certainly wouldn't have been cave-adapted before entering their caves, and can do so at least two times independently it is very preposterous to think skin colour in humans can't change and develop in convergent ways as well, seeing this is a much less drastic deviation.

the problem here is that skin color in humans has never been proven to be advantageous to survival in any situation other than social trends and behaviors.  meaning genocides against one group, sexual selection (preference) of a skin tone...etc.  there is no question that humans adapt.  there is no question that skin color can change; it simply doesn't change due to climate. 
there is no evidence of the type of advantage that you are describing.  realize, you aren't comparing the palest europeans to the darkest africans...you are comparing these intermediate tones with the extremes.  at some point, any advantage disappears.  thus populations don't need to adapt towards extremes.

uv radiation...skin cancer...that takes a while to kill.  there is plenty of time to reproduce before death.   similarly, blacks would literally need to be too weak to hunt for food for their darker skin to inhibit them in colder climates.  too weak such that they die out before reproducing.  or too weak to fight off lighter enemies.  the climactic advantage has not been proven.  it's only a theory.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2006, 09:27:49 PM by nibs »
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

Samoan Enforcer

  • Guest
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2006, 09:49:02 PM »
nah mixed gurl are real nice and unique, i've dated a chinese-indian-african-canadian chick once, she had them lips just like angelina jolie and those green eyes and her ass was crazy


Yea i know what you mean...I LOVE NUTS!



 :-X
 

swangin and bangin

  • Guest
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2006, 09:56:35 PM »
You guys are idiots. The reason black people in the US are lighter than Africans is because white slave masters slept with black slaves back during slavery. So white genes were introduced to the blakc population.

And because black men have been fucking a lot of your white women.
ahahaha
 

sonofisis

  • Muthafuckin' OG
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 490
  • Karma: -5
Re: Are blacks turning white tru generations??
« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2006, 06:47:55 PM »
If anyone in here knew anything about mutation, then you'd know there is no possible way for black people to become white through mixing.... Of course if you start with a black guy who mates a white women, you get a mixed baby. The mixed baby mates a white person, you have another mixed, more diluted baby, and so on until maybe the end result will end up white and pale. But not the whole race, c'mon, that's an ignorant question, no offense.. The only way blacks can turn white is if they move to a different climate, some where way up north near Europe for thousands of years in isolation, then mutations will occur in order for them to adapt, or if they produce an albino. But that's it.


Edit: Never mind, it seems as if a few of you have explained this in detail already and are in the middle of a debate, should of read the whole thread. Continue..
« Last Edit: December 16, 2006, 06:54:26 PM by sonofisis »
Mistah FAB "Ghost Ride It"