DNA testing shocks college students

[Gamdwelf]

First, a whole quote is really an unnecessary wasted space and then I can prove that Pangaea is a lie too.

We got a flat earther here.

[primalmatter]

I want off this ride...

[Eazy]

Only 6% with black people? We share 98% of DNA with Chimpanzee... and no one bats an eye.

[ranzino]

What I learned from this inane attempt at journalism: Coloured people assume any caucasian heritage is caused by rape and slavery.

As long as caucasian heritage is not nailed exactly in the corresponding time frame of slavery, it's useless.

- - - Updated - - -

We got a flat earther here.

Disproving Pangaea ? Yup, waiting on the arguments here. Except he pulls a Slartibartfast for matching coastlines in South America and Africa.

[chrisnumbers]

People have sex with other people?
Shocking.

[Huulo]

I'm not sure what you think your article proved. 6% of total marriages are interracial (of which likely to be mostly white asian and white caucasian)

Depending on what you're measuring, 6% can be very high. For example, a drug with a 6% chance of death would be banned by the FDA. I was attempting to show that interracial marriages are not exceptionally rare. But for the topic of discussion, it doesn't really matter. Even a very small percentage will have a cumulative effect over time. It's like adding 6% interest to your bank account every year. In 1000 years, you'd be a billionaire.

[Kraenen]

Depending on what you're measuring, 6% can be very high. For example, a drug with a 6% chance of death would be banned by the FDA. I was attempting to show that interracial marriages are not exceptionally rare. But for the topic of discussion, it doesn't really matter. Even a very small percentage will have a cumulative effect over time. It's like adding 6% interest to your bank account every year. In 1000 years, you'd be a billionaire.

And comparatively speaking, it's like adding 94% interest to another bank account and in 1000 years you'd be a trillionaire. I think you're leading the evidence to where you want it to be, because you prefer the notion of interracial relationships or something.

[ranzino]

Depending on what you're measuring, 6% can be very high. For example, a drug with a 6% chance of death would be banned by the FDA. I was attempting to show that interracial marriages are not exceptionally rare. But for the topic of discussion, it doesn't really matter. Even a very small percentage will have a cumulative effect over time. It's like adding 6% interest to your bank account every year. In 1000 years, you'd be a billionaire.

Wrong math; those 6 % DNA will not accumulate so easily. 6 % now becomes insignificant if your descendants start to have sex with anybody except blacks. some generations in the future the other percentages would rise and the former 6 % become a fragment as tiny as my Homo neanderthalensis DNA.

[Huulo]

Wrong math; those 6 % DNA will not accumulate so easily. 6 % now becomes insignificant if your descendants start to have sex with anybody except blacks. some generations in the future the other percentages would rise and the former 6 % become a fragment as tiny as my Homo neanderthalensis DNA.

You're making a very big assumption, that black people specifically will be cut out of the gene pool. That seems to be the assumption of several posters here, that somehow black people will be continually marginalized and segregated for the next 1000 years. I suppose if that were to be true, it would change the outcome, but I find it baseless and very unlikely.

- - - Updated - - -

And comparatively speaking, it's like adding 94% interest to another bank account and in 1000 years you'd be a trillionaire. I think you're leading the evidence to where you want it to be, because you prefer the notion of interracial relationships or something.

Where are you getting that from? I'm simply pointing out that in 1000 years, skin colors will be more intermediate. This is widely accepted science. And no, sorry, your analogy is basically gibberish in this context.

Think of it this way. I have 100 almonds and 100 walnuts in separate jars. Every day, I take a random nut from one jar and put it into another jar. One nut is only a very small percentage of the total. However, in time the nuts will be much more mixed than they were currently. Simple logic.

[Nitro Fun]

Where are you getting that from? I'm simply pointing out that in 1000 years, skin colors will be more intermediate. This is widely accepted science. And no, sorry, your analogy is basically gibberish in this context.

Think of it this way. I have 100 almonds and 100 walnuts in separate jars. Every day, I take a random nut from one jar and put it into another jar. One nut is only a very small percentage of the total. However, in time the nuts will be much more mixed than they were currently. Simple logic.

No, you're assuming that the skin color is something permanent and isn't bound to variation within populations. It's not permanent and has huge variation over various populations. My parents are pretty dark skinned but me and my siblings are light skinned compared to them. You just don't understand how genes are passed on. If you don't shut out paler skinned people from the process, it's not going to become darker. It'll remain at the same variance that exists today. There's been light and darker skinned people in southeast asia for a long time and it's not getting any darker there, it remains varied. There's no reason why genetics suddenly would skip out on paler skin unless you exclude it.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

They are lucky, I'd love to know more about my ancestry.

[Huulo]

No, you're assuming that the skin color is something permanent and isn't bound to variation. It doesn't. My parents are pretty dark skinned but me and my siblings are light skinned compared to them. You just don't understand how genes are passed on. If you don't shut out paler skinned people from the process, it's not going to become darker. It'll remain at the same variance that exists today. There's been light and darker skinned people in southeast asia for a long time and it's not getting any darker there, it remains varied. There's no reason why genetics suddenly would skip out on paler skin unless you exclude it.

Go back and read my posts, because what I've said is almost the opposite of what you're claiming. If this is what you think I said, then you simply misunderstood me. I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly without repeating myself.

[Nitro Fun]

Go back and read my posts, because what I've said is almost the opposite of what you're claiming. If this is what you think I said, then you simply misunderstood me. I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly without repeating myself.

You're saying it's going to be darker. It's not going to be darker. The variance in skin color will remain exactly the same as today unless you specifically shut out the genes that cause paler skin. You'd have to exclude east asians and white people from having kids if what you say is going to become true.

Like 1/6th of the world today are chinese. A few % in usa doing interracial marriage isn't even going to be noticable on a global level even if they selected for darker skin.

[Independent voter]

there are some "typical" sequences on noncoding dna that occur / are typical for /in certain strains of a species. they are called markers, and the abundance or nonabundance of those markers can give a hint to wich strain of humans you belong. but for individual testing, this is mostly scientific bullshit. And saying " u have 6 % of african ancestors" is stupid as fuck for anyone who has any clue of molecular biology. It just doesnt work this way.

i give one example of how it works:

Genetic findings on the population of the old etruscian cities in italy (small area north of rome) showed that they have a higher ocurrence of a genetic marker that is shared with phoenician stemming people from the levante and northern africa. So therefore the theory that etruscians came from the middle east as a colonie from a tribe that later became the phoenician/ punic is supportet by molecular biology findings.

Navajo is a tribe in the American South West and they hate Apaches. Apaches to them are like Vikings are to Ireland back in medieval times. DNA testing was able to show that Apaches are identical genetically to Navajo so they are essentially the same people, but at some point they each adopted different survival strategies. Apaches raid and Navajo heard and farm.

But like you say DNA testing for location only works on peoples with certain and rare genetic markers.

[Huulo]

You're saying it's going to be darker. It's not going to be darker. The variance in skin color will remain exactly the same as today unless you specifically shut out the genes that cause paler skin. You'd have to exclude east asians and white people from having kids if what you say is going to become true.

Like 1/6th of the world today are chinese. A few % in usa doing interracial marriage isn't even going to be noticable on a global level even if they selected for darker skin.

I never once said darker. In case it wasn't clear, I said that the skin colors will be more intermediate between what is seen today.

[Nitro Fun]

I never once said darker. In case it wasn't clear, I said that the skin colors will be more intermediate between what is seen today.

Which is darker. But that's not going to happen, because genetics doesn't transfer like you think it does. Nor are there enough people to even make any difference even if you select for darker skin.

[Kraenen]

Where are you getting that from? I'm simply pointing out that in 1000 years, skin colors will be more intermediate. This is widely accepted science. And no, sorry, your analogy is basically gibberish in this context.

Think of it this way. I have 100 almonds and 100 walnuts in separate jars. Every day, I take a random nut from one jar and put it into another jar. One nut is only a very small percentage of the total. However, in time the nuts will be much more mixed than they were currently. Simple logic.

Except the original jars are still making new almonds. And the new almond/walnut mix may well end up going back into the almond jar. Your analogy is missing this key element, which is why your perception is skewed towards intermixing.

I'd like to see the "widely accepted science" that humanity will be less diverse in terms of skin colors in 1000 years, or at least the reasoning for it.

[Huulo]

And the new almond/walnut mix may well end up going back into the almond jar.

Right there, re-read the part that I've quoted. It proves my point. The jars would be more mixed in composition than when they started. They would become more and more mixed with time. This is simply basic logic/math. I'm afraid I can't offer a more simple explanation. If there's something you don't understand, could you ask a more specific question?

If you'd like to know more about the science as it relates to skin color, you might start here: http://www.livescience.com/34228-wil...razilians.html Not a very scholarly article but we have to start somewhere.

[Nitro Fun]

Right there, re-read the part that I've quoted. It proves my point. The jars would be more mixed in composition than when they started. They would become more and more mixed with time. This is simply basic logic/math. I'm afraid I can't offer a more simple explanation. If there's something you don't understand, could you ask a more specific question?

If you'd like to know more about the science as it relates to skin color, you might start here: http://www.livescience.com/34228-wil...razilians.html Not a very scholarly article but we have to start somewhere.

So you assume the darker skin color if they are mixed with a parent who is darker is going to be permanent if they go into a group which is dominantly pale skinned. No, that dark skin is going to disappear in one or two generations. You just don't understand how genetics work. Even mixed people who are predominantly white but like 1/8 african look pale. You need to continue going for darker skin colors for it to not go back to being pale in some generations again. A small drop of darker skin in a sea of paleness is not going to make the skin darker for people. It will disappear if they get with people who are pale.

[Huulo]

Which is darker. But that's not going to happen, because genetics doesn't transfer like you think it does. Nor are there enough people to even make any difference even if you select for darker skin.

You're literally saying that my words are something other than they are. Intermediate does not mean darker. If you don't realize this, you've entered your own reality separate from logic.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that dark skinned alleles will increase in frequency, but that they will be more spread out as time goes on. I'm assuming that the frequencies will NOT change drastically. As far as I can tell, you are assuming that there will be select pressure for light skin.