attention: all blue eyed people......

[acealive1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22934464/wid/11915773?GT1=10815

looks like you're all inbred :lol:

[Khardis]

You really have a racist chip on your shoulder don't you? Like every post you make that I have come across is race obsessed somehow. Whats up with that?

[acealive1]

You really have a racist chip on your shoulder don't you? Like every post you make that I have come across is race obsessed somehow. Whats up with that?


read the link,bro. did i make it up? no.......



also my grandmother is white......im racist though,right? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Khardis]

read the link,bro. did i make it up? no.......



also my grandmother is white......im racist though,right? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I didn't say you made it up... thats irrelevant to the issue I addressed. Many if not a majority of your posts have something to do with race, race baiting and race trolling.

If most of my posts consisted of making fun of black people calling them inbreds (you've done a number of times) how I love to screw black women because they really need an Italian stud, how hard white people have it etc etc etc you might get the impression I was race obsessed too.

You can have a white grandmother and still be a racist, although I didn't call you racist I said you have a racist chip on your shoulder and post race obsessed tripe. Why don't you chill.

As per the article... DUH of course people with blonde hair and blue ares are on a sub genetic level inbred... ALL homogenous subgroups of humans are inbred to a small degree, including black people, indians and asians. If they weren't "inbred" as you say there wouldn't be distinct racial categories and phenotypes.

COnsider a tribe living in the Mountainous Alps where they have limited exposure to outside groups of humans for 1000s of years, they would all start to look similar to each other since the genetic pool is limited. This doesn't mean they're banging their sisters and cousins. But it does mean that people could be hooking up with their 2nd cousins, cousin which is so far removed genetically that "inbred retardation" which is the byproduct and stigma of brother sister inbreeding is a nonissue. Genetically though they would share a set of genes here and there. This is how the majority of the human race has existed for millions of years.

[acealive1]

I didn't say you made it up... thats irrelevant to the issue I addressed. Many if not a majority of your posts have something to do with race, race baiting and race trolling.

If most of my posts consisted of making fun of black people calling them inbreds (you've done a number of times) how I love to screw black women because they really need an Italian stud, how hard white people have it etc etc etc you might get the impression I was race obsessed too.

You can have a white grandmother and still be a racist, although I didn't call you racist I said you have a racist chip on your shoulder and post race obsessed tripe. Why don't you chill.

As per the article... DUH of course people with blonde hair and blue ares are on a sub genetic level inbred... ALL homogenous subgroups of humans are inbred to a small degree, including black people, indians and asians. If they weren't "inbred" as you say there wouldn't be distinct racial categories and phenotypes.

COnsider a tribe living in the Mountainous Alps where they have limited exposure to outside groups of humans for 1000s of years, they would all start to look similar to each other since the genetic pool is limited. This doesn't mean they're banging their sisters and cousins. But it does mean that people could be hooking up with their 2nd cousins, cousin which is so far removed genetically that "inbred retardation" which is the byproduct and stigma of brother sister inbreeding is a nonissue. Genetically though they would share a set of genes here and there. This is how the majority of the human race has existed for millions of years.


yea im so racist,man.........wow....:rolleyes::rolleyes:


the point of the post was to say where blue eyes came from and it happened to be a mutation when two people from the same gene pool mated. period.

[Danny]

So not only are my greeney browns a pool of piercing masculine intesnity but also prof my family isnt the cast of devlierance.:lol:

...despite the quiestinble walton style accomodations of the commonly deofrmed or mentally ill 'rural' side my dad came from that noone speaks of.....wait.....:lol:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/doublelol.jpg

[Legion2213]

esl2NNOtHQE

Yeeehaaaaw!

I thought the entire human race was derived from about 50 individuals anyway?

[acealive1]

esl2NNOtHQE

Yeeehaaaaw!

I thought the entire human race was derived from about 50 individuals anyway?


if u wanna get technical...it was really only two. YEEEEEHAWW:lol::lol:

[Mike70]

i read the article through twice and umm i think you need to reread the whole article ace. a few of us one here have backgrounds in science and a single common ancestor inbreeding does not equal. it simply means that the mutation arose in one person whose children were biologically successful (very successful in this case) in spreading the mutation on to others.

this sounds sort of like way sickle cell trait in west african populations (not sickle cell anemia that is something else) that makes people with the trait less susceptible to malaria because their red blood cells are shaped a bit different, got started. a mutation in a single individual whose progeny were successful in passing it on.

inbreding need not figure into it.

plus the article points out that the mutation that causes blue eyes has actually been a reproductive plus for the people that have it.


"The question really is, 'Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?" Hawks said. "This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids."

[MikePizzoff]

Well then where the f*ck do hazel, green, red, and amber eyes come from? Why are only blue eyes from inbreeding if "everyone" used to have brown eyes?

[clanglee]

i read the article through twice and umm i think you need to reread the whole article ace. a few of us one here have backgrounds in science and a single common ancestor inbreeding does not equal. it simply means that the mutation arose in one person whose children were biologically successful (very successful in this case) in spreading the mutation on to others.

this sounds sort of like way sickle cell trait in west african populations (not sickle cell anemia that is something else) that makes people with the trait less susceptible to malaria because their red blood cells are shaped a bit different, got started. a mutation in a single individual whose progeny were successful in passing it on.

inbreding need not figure into it.

plus the article points out that the mutation that causes blue eyes has actually been a reproductive plus for the people that have it.


Exactly. Thank you Scipio. Although you just ruined another chance for me to knock off another Deliverance quote.


Screw it, I'm doing it anyways. .

You sure got a purdy mou. . . I mean eyes.

[slickwilly13]

Good thing my eyes are brown. This reminded me of the Class Divided Experiment.

[Mike70]

Well then where the f*ck do hazel, green, red, and amber eyes come from? Why are only blue eyes from inbreeding if "everyone" used to have brown eyes?

don't bother worrying mike. inbreeding has absolutely nothing to do with it. i suspect either that he read into the original article wrong or has a problem with people with blue eyes.

inbreeding has fook all to do with anyone having blue eyes. a single common ancestor whose children were successful in passing this positive mutative trait on.

to paraphrase poe: that is it and nothing more...


on another note i find a lot of this "thread" to be damn insulting. if i came in here and posted a thread about how a population of black people were inbred because of their features i'd be booed and run out of said thread within seconds. stop with the race baiting. learn about what you are talking about. take some courses in anthropology and evolutionary biology and quit with the bullsheyat. the whole inbred thing has exposed some major weakness and major ignorance. in short keep your teeth together unless you are sure of what you are talking about. i could go on forever about this from a scientific standpoint but i get more and more pissed about with each passing second.

in my opinion the beginning of this whole thread constitutes baiting based on race and ought to be the subject of some sort of warning from the folks that run this site - and i am goddamn fcuking tempted to hit the button and report it as such. the poster has exposed the fact that he knows nothing of what he speaks about in this thread and took a tone that was almost guaranteed to start trouble with some other folks on here. he also has exposed that he has a problem understanding the basics of the english language or understanding the basic scientific concepts laid out in the article. nowhere in that article was inbreeding mentioned nor could it even inferred from the source material by anyone with even a basic grasp of the concepts laid forth therein and only someone devoid of even the most rudimentary knowledge of the topic or someone intent on causing trouble could arrive at such a conclusion.


the point of the post was to say where blue eyes came from and it happened to be a mutation when two people from the same gene pool mated. period.

wrong. wrong. wrong. PERIOD. the article states that people with blue eyes are descended from a common ancestor. an ancestor whose children proved highly successful reproductively and passed the trait on to their offspring, who passed it on to others.


read the link,bro. did i make it up? no.......

the poster sure didn't write the article but he sure as fook didn't understand it either.

[clanglee]

Woah woah woah!!! Calm down Scipio. Chill man. I don't think he meant to race bait at all. I think it was an attempt at humor, based on a misunderstanding of the source material. Don't blow it all out of proportion man. You seem a level headed sort, think man. It is very easy to misinterperate people's statement's on an online environment. Cool out man. :cool:

[Mike70]

level headed in all regards except when it comes to science dude and scientific ignorance in particular. and when someone spouts off something that i find highly, highly offensive about something they simply fail to understand i feel the need to light said person up like a christmas tree and expose said ignorance.

i don't think it was exactly humorous given some of the responses to khardis. down right nasty in fact.

would folks find it funny if a post like this was put up about black folks? or hispanic folks? i don't think so. so why should i find it funny or humorous? i don't in the extreme.

[Terran]

"inbred"
....we are all "inbred" to some extent (depending upon how one applies the definition)[evolution]....I am not offended by the article and I am not offended by the context....I thought It was funny...*shrugs*....I guess to some extent the level of humor is dependent upon how one views their human ancestry….
.....

[Kaos]

The thread is closed.

The interpretation of the article as presented is a violation of forum rules.