WHY DO WE NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR SELF CONSCIENCE-NESS AND SELECTIVELY BREED

[Amen]

Originally Posted by Diode

And look at you now..

I will set up an escrow for $10k that says neither of your kids will make it to the professional level of any of the big 4 American sports.

Winner take all.

Interested?

Let's do it.

Lol @ grown men trying to belittle my kids.

Sad life you live.

[Amen]

Also, Knuckle - none of you could ever upset me, bruh.

Not possible, but keep trying. I appreciate the effort.

[King Karaoke]

Originally Posted by dickNoze

Also, Knuckle - none of you could ever upset me, bruh.

Not possible, but keep trying. I appreciate the effort.

Hi...

Sigh...
This site is full of a bunch of corny dudes who think posting other people's pics and personal info makes them Lex Luthor...
No it just makes them weird...

Bye...

[Witty]

Lots of long posts iit.

[sral]

Originally Posted by King Karaoke

Hi...

Sigh...
This site is full of a bunch of corny dudes who think posting other people's pics and personal info makes them Lex Luthor...
No it just makes them weird...

Bye...

hold the fuck up here because I always keep it 110% real with you motherfuckers here..

my intention of posting people's kids so they can be ridiculed in some kind of way is non-existent

the reason behind me showing amen with his is because he is a lying, cheating pathetic asshole prepared to risk relationship with his own children and fuck up their childhood and the only parents they've ever known jut because he not grown enough to resist temptation like a fucking man

I posted this picture to remind him of what he has, and what he will lose when he's ultimately caught out in his own lie when it eventually happens

as a father myself you really think imma be looking to post pictures of ppls kids for the board to mock?

come the fuck on Kar

you been known me too long to think I'm on some fuck shit

[sral]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

we have some misconceptions here but i'll answer your points by the numbers


2. i've still yet to mention intelligence, you bring it up. i mention it in the sense that we can't quantify it in the sense that its passed on. like i said einsteins parents were dolts. his kids are regular dummies too. intelligence as i understand it is a crapshoot. the smartest people can have dumbass kids and vice versa.

as far as BEAUTY, beauty is absolutely quantifiable through evolutionary science. we all have preferences, but across recorded history, and across every single culture, women go for taller men, broader shoulders etc., and men seek the hourglass figure. we like wide hips and fat asses because it helps with child rearing. we like big tits cuz it can nourish the offspring better, as well as the extra fat just helps the child in UTERO. but from ancient times to modern times the hourglass figure is revered, like i said we all vary in preferences, some guys like really skinny chicks with boy bodies. but we are working with averages here, and there is a reason instagram models with nice asses and tits have millions of followers, there is a reason certain pornstars are more popular than others etc. i'm sure you're thinking of maybe victorian times when paintings had goofy fat women in them and we're taught oh they liked fat women then, but keep in mind if you were fat you were well off, and also even those fat women would dress in dresses that got huge and puffy at the hips and tight at the waist with a corset with the tits smashed and pushed up. accentuating the hourglass figure you can see in every culture celebrated.

Okay, so we'll leave intelligence alone for now since we haven't defined what you mean by "intelligence" for now anyway. Even though you talked on "beauty", you mentioned quite a few athletes in LeBron/Serena/Brock and so I think what you're actually looking for is "Health".

Beauty it is, emperor Uh-oh. You have your definition of what beauty is. Unfortunately for you, not every man alive agrees (as seen in Bags recent attempt to upgrade grocery store Tinderella to a strong 6).


Why does this not happen automatically?
-Low standards by men. IIRC it was Helen Gurley-Brown who remarked, "men will schtupp mud." Considering what's pushing around baby strollers either, this is very true or they have some deep inner beauty... very deep.

-Some health problems - heart issues, breast cancer, alzheimers - tend to not appear until breeding selection and actvity has passed. If we were actively selecting for good traits, these would not be identified.

-Many (especially late in life) health issues also relate to environmental factors, so selection does not matter. Many we still have no idea about the real cause.

-Modern medicine and other technology is actually working to send us backwards. Not only do people with poor vision, for example, have glasses that allow them to avoid being culled by random accidents, they also have contact lenses so the defect is not evident during the mating phase.

-Similarly, modern techniques with cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, etc. hide the effects of poor genes during the mating phase.

-Similarly, we have welfare, medicare, etc. that allow the less capable to continue to reproduce, when social as well as medical circumstances might have limited the number or survivability of offspring. Also, we have birth control for the upper class, meaning the successful have more incentive and means to reduce their offspring which would cut into the lifestyle and toys they can have.

essentially the rule of thumb is probably that it's 50-50; so a not-so-smart person with a good education and training can outperform a smart lazy bastard.

-Success and more offspring does not correlate with smarts or fitness. Who is better suited for passing on their relatively lesser quality genes? Trump seems to have more children than Einstein...

[Amen]

Lol risking relationship with my kids had nothing to do with their mother, moron.

Regardless of anything, they will ALWAYS be in my life, retard.

My bond with my boys will never break. Continue being the weirdo faggot you are reaching and searching for people's pictures.

This is why your son will always be a beta faggot, sadly like his father.

Keep thinking you know what you are talking about.

And continue to live in the delusional happy ending story you believe you live in.

You don't cheat because you can't. If you could, you would.

Every dude had at one point or another.

You have no idea how or what my relationship with my sons mother is like, fuckboy.

Keep thinking you do tho, lol.

[Amen]

Originally Posted by King Karaoke

Hi...

Sigh...
This site is full of a bunch of corny dudes who think posting other people's pics and personal info makes them Lex Luthor...
No it just makes them weird...

Bye...

I know, lol. Entertaining tho. None of these dudes could touch me outside of NC which is why they try so hard on NC.

The attempts at ridiculing and name changes is comical.

I'm glad I get underneath their skin tho.

Because if this was the real world, they'd get bodied.

And that's a fact.

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by sraL

Okay, so we'll leave intelligence alone for now since we haven't defined what you mean by "intelligence" for now anyway. Even though you talked on "beauty", you mentioned quite a few athletes in LeBron/Serena/Brock and so I think what you're actually looking for is "Health".

Beauty it is, emperor Uh-oh. You have your definition of what beauty is. Unfortunately for you, not every man alive agrees (as seen in Bags recent attempt to upgrade grocery store Tinderella to a strong 6).


Why does this not happen automatically?
-Low standards by men. IIRC it was Helen Gurley-Brown who remarked, "men will schtupp mud." Considering what's pushing around baby strollers either, this is very true or they have some deep inner beauty... very deep.

-Some health problems - heart issues, breast cancer, alzheimers - tend to not appear until breeding selection and actvity has passed. If we were actively selecting for good traits, these would not be identified.

-Many (especially late in life) health issues also relate to environmental factors, so selection does not matter. Many we still have no idea about the real cause.

-Modern medicine and other technology is actually working to send us backwards. Not only do people with poor vision, for example, have glasses that allow them to avoid being culled by random accidents, they also have contact lenses so the defect is not evident during the mating phase.

-Similarly, modern techniques with cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, etc. hide the effects of poor genes during the mating phase.

-Similarly, we have welfare, medicare, etc. that allow the less capable to continue to reproduce, when social as well as medical circumstances might have limited the number or survivability of offspring. Also, we have birth control for the upper class, meaning the successful have more incentive and means to reduce their offspring which would cut into the lifestyle and toys they can have.

essentially the rule of thumb is probably that it's 50-50; so a not-so-smart person with a good education and training can outperform a smart lazy bastard.

-Success and more offspring does not correlate with smarts or fitness. Who is better suited for passing on their relatively lesser quality genes? Trump seems to have more children than Einstein...

word but again im strictly talking physical in my selection process lol. i'm disregarding pretty much everything else. i wasn't thinking about predisposition to ailments/diseases or anything, im just talking about building better humans from a physical sense. the same way when you selectively breed dogs to get an ugly english bulldog, your not worried about its health or lifespan as much as you want it to look like it does. great danes might be a better analogy in the sense they are bred to be giants, they aren't fat either they're just beasts who live like 6-8 years tops lol. sure we could look at all dogs and breed them for intelligence/health/lifespan etc. to make a "perfect dog" but where is the fun in that. lets just breed the biggest scariest coolest looking ones.

also i'm pretty sure the dumb/ugly breed at a way higher rate then the intelligent. im going off of my own dumb life experiences but the dumbest people i know have at least 2 kids. im not sure how it is in england but in america you get rewarded for being a piece of shit leech on the system. i know people who have more kids to get more free money every year. with every kid on your tax return your basically giving yourself more money at the end of the year, and you are also incentivized to make less money so you get more "food stamps" every month. my best friend from back in the day literally has 4 kids, they make MAYBE 15k a year on the books, but they get like 7 grand back in taxes when in reality they probably pay like 2 in tops. they get 600 a month in foodstamps, and sell half of them for actual cash, and he smashed his hand at work and lost a finger, so even though he's capable of working again he continues to leech the system through workers comp, gets free prescriptions to painkillers and sells the majority of them for more money

got a little off track there but word. the dumb and less "fortunate" have more incentive to breed

the problem is this worked in the past when we needed copious amounts of ditch diggers and assembly line shills, but with innovations in robotics and everything else, and the myth you need a college education to survive, there is nothing for these dummies to do.

which is why we should build a master athlete race and start a gigantic war. the dummy plebs can work in factories to feed the war machine and we can make america great again

[sral]

LOL my trouble with your theory is that I don't think slave breeding has ever involved the discipline required, was widespread enough, or continued for the generations necessary to alter the gene pool.

There are sperm banks that will sell you the sperm of a Nobel prize winner, but that doesn't guarantee anything. There are extremely few families where even two generations are outstanding at anything, and there's always the chance of a slip up--Johnny & Edgar Winters family had no professional musicians or albinos in it prior to them.

Then again, to come back to Yao Ming - his parents were actively encouraged to marry and have children. And look at him!

So sure, this is possible... as long as we remember that the "Scandinavian" class standards are arbitrary. So we can arbitrarily say that the Scandinavian breed should be over 6 feet, straight blonde hair, copious beard in males, blue eyes, straight nose, skin pale as milk, with an aggressive disposition and an instinct for boating and looting. And we could breed humans to conform to that standard, and after a few dozen generations we could get a breed that would breed true.

That doesn't change the fact that most real life Scandinavians wouldn't conform to that standard, the standard doesn't exist in real life, any more than the standard for Jack Russell Terriers means anything more than we've decided that Jack Russell Terriers should be small, white with spots, smooth coated and yippy. If we decided tomorrow that Jack Russell Terriers should be large, long-tailed, black coated and with copious drool, then that's what the standard would be.

The standard will change. The breed standards for humans would be attractive in their own way, but they would need to fit the standard for that group as well. "Mutts" such as people that have obviously mixed heritage are right out... even if they are stunningly attractive. This would exclude most people, especially those in North America and wherever @Plot is from. We need the people that still appear as purebreds in the same way that dogs are; such as the white haired tall Scandinavians, the Chinese man with slight build and perfect eye slants, @Resin and some almost purple skinned African tribesman for example. @Vapeo This is fairly subjective of course but so is any concept of breeds that humans create.

[sral]

That said, Emperor uh-oh, I think genetic engineering would be a better end for you to work on in your plan of global domination - rather than selective breeding.

If you ever do make a success of it, please remember your favourite British counterpart. :^)

[uh-oh]

a simple look at an african from any african nation compared to basically any african american with ancestry tying back to slavery disproves your opinon. its taboo for scientists to look at racial differences, you'll be blackballed and deemed racist, because what motive is required to actually study such "miniscule" differences between the races? so you're not gonna find credited scientific studies and shit.

but if you think there is no evidence of physicality being passed on you're deluding yourself man

shaq knocked up a regular woman. his 16 year old son is already 7 ft tall. his 12 year old kid is 6'1. i'm 6'1. lmao.

to think selectively breeding for physicality won't show up is nonsense. if yao ming knocked up a 5'0 woman i would bet my life his kids would be at least 6'3.

again i think we have to be arguing for different points. maybe you are thinking im talking about making a new breed of humans altogether? i'm just talking about making giant athletic humans.

lebron james' kids are going to be freaks. because lebron james is a freak. if lebron knocked up serena williams their kid would probably be the greatest athlete of all time. granted its not guaranteed. maybe he'd be slow. but one thing is absolutely certain, he would be a physical specimen in some regard. height/stature.

slave breeding was more in line with getting "healthy" workers though. thats why they would inspect the teeth for instance. if your slave had bad teeth, it could die in those days from infection. you wanted a physically strong slave so he would have the endurance needed. they weren't breeding for size strictly.

the part jimmy the greek forgets is that while what he is saying was basically true, black africans are already superior runners to begin with, east africans are renowned for their endurance in marathons and the like. west africans are superior sprinters. this is all scientific fact.

again there are freaks from every culture but i'm talking in averages.

and you can absolutely find physical traits passed on from even 1 generation. physicality isn't as much of a crapshoot as trying to identify certain genes. like baldness or something. even though they basically tie that to your mothers father. etc

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by sraL

That said, Emperor uh-oh, I think genetic engineering would be a better end for you to work on in your plan of global domination - rather than selective breeding.

If you ever do make a success of it, please remember your favourite British counterpart. :^)

I GOT YOU

the ability to write multi syllable rhymes will be something that allows your genes to pass on.

[Amen]

Didn't Hitler attempt this, as well?

He was attempting to breed nazis?

Built like Ivan Drago with blond hair blue eyes?

[~RustyGunZ~]

Lol Santiago kids so beta

No one would ever breed them in uh ohs grand scheme

They'd be maintenance on the jizz vats

[sral]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

a simple look at an african from any african nation compared to basically any african american with ancestry tying back to slavery disproves your opinon. its taboo for scientists to look at racial differences, you'll be blackballed and deemed racist, because what motive is required to actually study such "miniscule" differences between the races? so you're not gonna find credited scientific studies and shit.

but if you think there is no evidence of physicality being passed on you're deluding yourself man

shaq knocked up a regular woman. his 16 year old son is already 7 ft tall. his 12 year old kid is 6'1. i'm 6'1. lmao.

to think selectively breeding for physicality won't show up is nonsense. if yao ming knocked up a 5'0 woman i would bet my life his kids would be at least 6'3.

again i think we have to be arguing for different points. maybe you are thinking im talking about making a new breed of humans altogether? i'm just talking about making giant athletic humans.

lebron james' kids are going to be freaks. because lebron james is a freak. if lebron knocked up serena williams their kid would probably be the greatest athlete of all time. granted its not guaranteed. maybe he'd be slow. but one thing is absolutely certain, he would be a physical specimen in some regard. height/stature.

slave breeding was more in line with getting "healthy" workers though. thats why they would inspect the teeth for instance. if your slave had bad teeth, it could die in those days from infection. you wanted a physically strong slave so he would have the endurance needed. they weren't breeding for size strictly.

the part jimmy the greek forgets is that while what he is saying was basically true, black africans are already superior runners to begin with, east africans are renowned for their endurance in marathons and the like. west africans are superior sprinters. this is all scientific fact.

again there are freaks from every culture but i'm talking in averages.

and you can absolutely find physical traits passed on from even 1 generation. physicality isn't as much of a crapshoot as trying to identify certain genes. like baldness or something. even though they basically tie that to your mothers father. etc

lmao i'm agreeing with you bruh

Then again, to come back to Yao Ming - his parents were actively encouraged to marry and have children. And look at him!

So sure, this is possible...

One thing you're severely overlooking in your maniacal strides toward human perfection though is a little thing called "Regression to the mean"

You would have to pick the ones that conformed to your wishes and ONLY breed those.

Regression to the mean applies to a single generation in a "randomised" population and to complex traits. If, in a population with mostly brown eyed people, you bred two with blue eyes, all the kids would have blue eyes. And if vice versa you'd still have 75 % offspring with brown. No regression towards the mean. (If we pretend there are only blue and brown eyes and ignore all the genes we don't mention in high school biology.)

If you pick only those with 160 IQ to breed, the first generation will only have a small number of the super-intelligent, but they will have more super-intelligent than the population as a whole, and more of the highly intelligent, and intelligent, and more of the "average". Pick only the best from this new population and the third generation will be even "better".

Of course, for this to be successful, we have to prevent those not selected from breeding. Unless all you want to do is create a sub-group of humanity with unusual traits, it doesn't matter to you that the rejects are breeding somewhere outside your empire of intelligence/beauty/sports ability.

Probably the most famous study of selective breeding for mammalian behavior is the domestication of the silver fox.

The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the "domesticated elite," are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the tenth generation, 18 percent of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35 percent. Today elite foxes make up 70 to 80 percent of our experimentally selected population.

About 5% of males and 20% of females were allowed to breed.

The regression to the mean refers to the mean of the breeding population. If a new splinter population is created through selective breeding, reproductive isolation, runaway sexual selection, etc. then a new mean will be created (e.g. founder effect).

As an aside, and I don't know if this still has much pull in modern thinking, but one idea is that humans basically self-domesticated. This partially explains human neoteny and the increased willingness to cooperate with others, lessened aggressiveness compared to primate ancestors, etc.

One can only guess at what selective breeding could do for modern humans. There are physical limits. To the great consternation of mothers, we're about maxed out for skull size vs. birth canal circumference. People who are 7-8 feet tall have a lot of problems with their feet, knees, hearts, etc. It's interesting to wonder if you could breed passive cow-like humans (with us being the auroch). A big hit for futuristic totalitarian dystopias, I'm sure.

Selective breeding really does not depend on new genes coming into existence.

I think the focus on a trait like intelligence is maybe making the discussion more complicated than it needs to be, because we don't even know the extent to which genetics controls intelligence.

Go back to basic genetics. A gene codes for something like a protein product that produces a result in the final organism (the phenotype). Genes in a population exist in multiple versions - alleles. The paired nature of DNA means that an individual actually has two genes in most locations and it's possible to have two different alleles in the same individual.

But selective breeding looks at a whole population. There are many different alleles in the population - it could be dozens or hundreds. A natural population has a certain ratio of those alleles that mix around and generally reach some equilibrium. If you want allele #23 in your in your final breed, you can find two individuals in the population who have that and breed them. At least some of their offspring end up with 23. Eventually, you can get them to "breed true" where their DNA contains only allele 23 and nothing else.

For a single gene, you could accomplish this in a single generation. Two parents that are 23-? and 23-? will produce 1/4 of their offspring that are 23-23. If you can tell those apart, then you're done. Sometimes 23-? and 23-23 look identical (have the same phenotype) and that complicates things, because it means 1/4 of the offspring will be ?-?. That's one reason why establishing a stable breed is more difficult in real life than a single generation.

Of course, doing anything complicated also involves multiple genes. You don't go from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane with a single gene. The more genes you need to combine, the more generations you need until all the random combinations come out the way you want. Eventually, you reach your own equilibrium of alleles based on artificial selection rather than the equilibrium from nature that came from natural selection.

As far as returning to the median goes... most of the time, you haven't completely eliminate all of the old genes. Plus, the old genes can be put back into a population by breeding with wild species. Once you stop artificially selecting, then natural selection takes over again and you tend to wind up with the same equilibrium that the wild species had originally.

[Amen]

Originally Posted by $chein Dolla $ign

Lol Santiago kids so beta

No one would ever breed them in uh ohs grand scheme

They'd be maintenance on the jizz vats

Stfu faggot.

There is a reason why you have no kids.

Remember that, you waste of sperm.

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by sraL

lmao i'm agreeing with you bruh



One thing you're severely overlooking in your maniacal strides toward human perfection though is a little thing called "Regression to the mean"

You would have to pick the ones that conformed to your wishes and ONLY breed those.

Regression to the mean applies to a single generation in a "randomised" population and to complex traits. If, in a population with mostly brown eyed people, you bred two with blue eyes, all the kids would have blue eyes. And if vice versa you'd still have 75 % offspring with brown. No regression towards the mean. (If we pretend there are only blue and brown eyes and ignore all the genes we don't mention in high school biology.)

If you pick only those with 160 IQ to breed, the first generation will only have a small number of the super-intelligent, but they will have more super-intelligent than the population as a whole, and more of the highly intelligent, and intelligent, and more of the "average". Pick only the best from this new population and the third generation will be even "better".

Of course, for this to be successful, we have to prevent those not selected from breeding. Unless all you want to do is create a sub-group of humanity with unusual traits, it doesn't matter to you that the rejects are breeding somewhere outside your empire of intelligence/beauty/sports ability.

Probably the most famous study of selective breeding for mammalian behavior is the domestication of the silver fox.




About 5% of males and 20% of females were allowed to breed.

The regression to the mean refers to the mean of the breeding population. If a new splinter population is created through selective breeding, reproductive isolation, runaway sexual selection, etc. then a new mean will be created (e.g. founder effect).

As an aside, and I don't know if this still has much pull in modern thinking, but one idea is that humans basically self-domesticated. This partially explains human neoteny and the increased willingness to cooperate with others, lessened aggressiveness compared to primate ancestors, etc.

One can only guess at what selective breeding could do for modern humans. There are physical limits. To the great consternation of mothers, we're about maxed out for skull size vs. birth canal circumference. People who are 7-8 feet tall have a lot of problems with their feet, knees, hearts, etc. It's interesting to wonder if you could breed passive cow-like humans (with us being the auroch). A big hit for futuristic totalitarian dystopias, I'm sure.

Selective breeding really does not depend on new genes coming into existence.

I think the focus on a trait like intelligence is maybe making the discussion more complicated than it needs to be, because we don't even know the extent to which genetics controls intelligence.

Go back to basic genetics. A gene codes for something like a protein product that produces a result in the final organism (the phenotype). Genes in a population exist in multiple versions - alleles. The paired nature of DNA means that an individual actually has two genes in most locations and it's possible to have two different alleles in the same individual.

But selective breeding looks at a whole population. There are many different alleles in the population - it could be dozens or hundreds. A natural population has a certain ratio of those alleles that mix around and generally reach some equilibrium. If you want allele #23 in your in your final breed, you can find two individuals in the population who have that and breed them. At least some of their offspring end up with 23. Eventually, you can get them to "breed true" where their DNA contains only allele 23 and nothing else.

For a single gene, you could accomplish this in a single generation. Two parents that are 23-? and 23-? will produce 1/4 of their offspring that are 23-23. If you can tell those apart, then you're done. Sometimes 23-? and 23-23 look identical (have the same phenotype) and that complicates things, because it means 1/4 of the offspring will be ?-?. That's one reason why establishing a stable breed is more difficult in real life than a single generation.

Of course, doing anything complicated also involves multiple genes. You don't go from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane with a single gene. The more genes you need to combine, the more generations you need until all the random combinations come out the way you want. Eventually, you reach your own equilibrium of alleles based on artificial selection rather than the equilibrium from nature that came from natural selection.

As far as returning to the median goes... most of the time, you haven't completely eliminate all of the old genes. Plus, the old genes can be put back into a population by breeding with wild species. Once you stop artificially selecting, then natural selection takes over again and you tend to wind up with the same equilibrium that the wild species had originally.

any single man could essentially impregnate every single woman on earth. one load can have like 500 million sperm in it. there would be no worries about dilluting the gene pool

[~RustyGunZ~]

Originally Posted by dickNoze

Stfu faggot.

There is a reason why you have no kids.

Remember that, you waste of sperm.

What's that reason lol

[NYCSPITZ]

Originally Posted by dickNoze

Let's do it.

Lol @ grown men trying to belittle my kids.

Sad life you live.

aren't u from queens? TO test your progeny and their extrapolated athletic ability I suggest we play handball, I haven't played in a while. You got left to 2 at the court of your choice or straight up for $500.