Does Hybridization Always result in superior genes?

[IvoryEbony]

Let's look at the liger. It does not have superior hunting capacities to the prides of the two different species (lion and tiger) it being larger no more makes it ferocious than another feline species, the Jaguar, at least not pound for pound the Jaguar is still more 'fit'

The issue I have with hybridization is that at some point it dilutes the strain. And there is a real genetic basis for this, sure every once in a while you'll get liger-like advantages, but, eventually you have less variety/genetic components when one strain has more oil than water or more glue than rubber as it were. If you have a liger that is 99.999999999% Tiger and .00000000001% Lion than it will probably not have as many genetic components as a liger that is 50/50.

We also have to take note that plants self-pollinate! A lot of the issues with birth defects is more stigma than science. Anyone can have birth defects, and not every single inbred has a birth defect, just more so than otherwise. Which is why I stress having a fair variety is always better. 

 

28 minutes ago, IvoryEbony said:

 If you have a liger that is 99.999999999% Tiger and .00000000001% Lion than it will probably not have as many genetic components as a liger that is 50/50.

 

I would argue that Moors Sicilians are in desperate need of Norwegian or Celctic.

Otherwise we lose some variety, and we already have Spaniards and Middle Easterners so there's no need to continue elimaniting an already endangered ilk population wise (too many chiefs not enough indians). We have an unequal balance, and the result is psuedo-incest.

Those refered to as the minority, are the majority globally btw. It's genocide of the fair haired/skinned strain I tell you! Seriously look it up. There's way more Asians/Spaniards/Indians/Africans than there are plain white people. More of each (except Africans but we don't know how much African is in Middle Eastern Indian [black plus white] or MexiSpaniard [black plus Asian]). 

It's complicated, really Spaniard is black and white, because Europe is closer to Africa, yet Mexican is Asian and Black because native american Indians are Asian by ancestry. Yet middle eastern is either black and white or black and asian so we have this other 'East Indian's confusion and I swear they called Western Natives Indian just to confuse the genocide of lilly white issue.

 

Basically you start with three hybrid hominoids, Cro-magnum (black), Neanderthal (white), and Deniven (Asian) and poof you get a higher percent Neanderthal and it's a blonde haired blue eyed pale skinned devil (the minority here), you get more cro-magnum and it's George Foreman, you get more Deniven and it's Michio Kaku. Spaniards, Mexicans, and Eastern Indians (the majority) definitely have too much Deniven and Cro-magnum and too little Neanderthal and Deniven. We're missing the Asian-Caucasian equation. Too bad Alexander didn't have sons to conquer Rome as well and go against Kahn's sons. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by IvoryEbony

[IvoryEbony]

Let's see I already got the Moors (black) Gothic (white) thing going as a Sicilian, but zero Asian in my ancestry afik time to bridge the gap, for science.

My pool needs the right combo what it's missing I think we should all ask ourselves this question, what in our ancestry are we lacking? That's your soulmate right there!

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by IvoryEbony

[CharonY]

There are no superior or inferior genes. Just genes. They interact with each other and (indirectly) with the environment. Whether the interaction is beneficial or not is a moving target. Inbreeding is a big issue, however as they increase the likelihood of genetic defects. It is not equal among all phyla, obviously as simpler organisms and plants tend to be more resilient. And of course there are asexually propagating organisms which play by somewhat different rules. Trying to split up human in-species diversity along the lines you do makes little sense. Our highest diversity is found within Africa, which is in line with our current understanding of human migration.

[IvoryEbony]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

There are no superior or inferior genes. Just genes. They interact with each other and (indirectly) with the environment. Whether the interaction is beneficial or not is a moving target. Inbreeding is a big issue, however as they increase the likelihood of genetic defects.

You just contradicted yourself. 

Quote

It is not equal among all phyla... play by somewhat different rules.

It's sounds like we're going forward in phyla combinations amongst the strains that originated in abiogenesis to the newest (sapiens) from the oldest. If anything we should be more immune to birth defects, a midget is still smarter and still posses the superior motility (albeit less motility than normal) than that of a chimp and even if inbreeding make him more susceptible to dwarfism he's still the result of more evolutionary changes and combinations, just as many in fact as his parents. Just because a human has MORE (meaning there's more that can go wrong because he has more than the comparison an asexual plant) doesn't mean you can say that he's not playing by the same rna strains just more into the future of mutation quantity and mixture as we Mammals go through the early stages of former vertebrae amphibians, reptillians, etc in the womb yet every creature on this plant was printed out of the same hydrthermal vents on the chemical ingredient level.

Quote

Trying to split up human in-species diversity along the lines you do makes little sense. Our highest diversity is found within Africa, which is in line with our current understanding of human migration.

It is an impossible to follow line of descent from various homini without a time machine, however if you're lacking in a certain ancestry it should go to reason that would be a better pick. And actually the Denovens were in Asia, and other hominids existed outside of Africa prior to the existence of homosapiens which are ALL mutts of other hominids it's just a question of how much more dominant one hominid strain is than another. And this wanting to mix it up comes from the same logic as inbreeding. We generally want more traits, so Asian given my ancestry, not black.

Even being Sicilian, a .000001% black, I still have more black than Asian so Asian slightly takes the cake.

True Romance is a matter of science, not emotions or cultural or linguistic barriers. An argument can be made that because one relates more, has more sexual attraction to, etc etc to their own gender or culture or WHATEVER is an unscientific way to choose a mate. An argument can be made that a homosexual or racist can just give a sperm sample to the desired effect of genetic diversity to their offspring, however it is better for a child to observe how their different parents work through cultural barriers or sexual disagreements and remain open to love as not a victory dance but a cold and broken hallelujah.

Edited February 12, 2021 by IvoryEbony

[studiot]

39 minutes ago, IvoryEbony said:

You just contradicted yourself. 

If CharonY contradicted themselves, so did you.

5 hours ago, IvoryEbony said:

and Eastern Indians (the majority) definitely have too much Deniven and Cro-magnum and too little Neanderthal and Deniven.

How does one have both too much Deniven and too little Deniven ?

I suggest you slow down and tighten up on your presentation.
It is too much ( for pedantic idiots like myseself) to sort out what the actual topic is about.

 

Note this is not an endorsement of what CharonY said as I do not quite agree with every bit of it.

Edited February 12, 2021 by studiot
spelling

[CharonY]

29 minutes ago, IvoryEbony said:

You just contradicted yourself. 

 

Nope, simply because genes just are. We can measure how they contribute to fitness of a population, but it is not a fixed measure. I.e. changing environmental conditions would favour different set of genes. I.e. one allele being beneficial under one condition may be neutral or negative in another. The rest of our argument seems to be based on biology that is entirely non-standard knowledge so you would need to explain more what you mean. 

[IvoryEbony]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

If CharonY contradicted themselves, so did you.

How does one have both too much Ceniven and too little Deniven ?

I suggest to slow down and tighten up on your presentation.
It is too much ( for pedantic idiots like myseself) to sort out what the actual topic is about.

 

Note this is not an endorsement of what CharonY said as I do not quite agree with all of it.

Let's say in the overall picking of mates the result is 65% ceniven, & 35% Denivens. Whereas ideally you want to retain 50/50 balance overtime. This is what I mean by too much hybridization, think of having too much favoring of one ethnic group over the generations.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, IvoryEbony said:

You just contradicted yourself. 

Can you please point to the contradiction? As I can't see it.

[John Cuthber]

"Does Hybridization Always result in superior genes?"

It is impossible to define "superior genes" in isolation from the environment.

[MigL]

You mentioned True Romance in yesterday's 3{29 pm post.
I suggest you watch the movie True Romance, especially the part where retired cop, Dennis Hopper, explains the origins of Sicilians to mobster, Christopher Walken, in an effort to avoid torture by being killed swiftly.

WARNING:
Some may find video offensive and disturbing.
View at own risk.

( incidentally, I am a native Italian )

Edited February 14, 2021 by MigL

[IvoryEbony]

Okay, now believe it or not. These are all considered perversions by some, while the opposite cases are made by others. Some of these are urges but urges with a background, and more commonly it's divide and conquer. Is that a bad thing, to consume to survive? To weed out the weak, on an evolutionary level?

 

At the same time, those who hack it in the military keep their families, that that get divided and conquered get adopted. So there is no government! Just white military and black street. Now I have managed to hold to my own, not get conquered and adopted, not get enlisted and cucked. And I'm just wondering, when do I get a crack at the accused?

I'll take down the ghetto and the Navy singlehandedly.

 

[nuDAN]

I'm struggling a bit with the "superior gene" concept. There are too many factors involved in gene selection to make that kind of a qualitative assessment. As mentioned, environmental forcing is one, chemical is another which could include changes in crops composition with regional differences due to OTHER factors, both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic. Latitude/altitude even can be a factor. And then there are carnivorous diets which can be a factor in gene selection due to whatever the prey's diet is, such as meat or plant material.

Ultimately, phenotype through gene selection is a function of RNA which selects one of two genes (alleles) where one is maternal in origin and the other paternal. That determines which of the two genes goes on to express the protein that results in an organism's detailed phenotypes as well its overall phenotype. Nature experiments, as it always has, with success rates. Ligers might have been around a long time ago had it been successful. Whose to say that it WASN'T around and just didn't make the grade and so got selected out. Ultimately, most everything is a hybrid. Especially primates since Human ancestry is now known to be riddled with intermingling. And as long as genes make copies, which is what they do, then even something like a theoretical "superior gene" will eventually get altered by either adding or deleting base pairs. Just such a process occurs where deleting base pairs has resulted in microcephaly and added base pairs moved in the other direction, resulting in macrocephaly.

Maybe "superior gene" is an inadequate, if not unfortunate, choice of terms?  

Edited February 14, 2021 by nuDAN

[IvoryEbony]

You have to destroy all these thoughts at some point. It's just dick measuring. Any way you go, whatever side you choose, white, black, Asian, whatever. Is wrong and your fault for doing and you'll make allies and friends with both the side you pick and the side you didn't for both reasons. It's called drama.

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

You mentioned True Romance in yesterday's 3{29 pm post.
I suggest you watch the movie True Romance, especially the part where retired cop, Dennis Hopper, explains the origins of Sicilians to mobster, Christopher Walken, in an effort to avoid torture by being killed swiftly.

WARNING:
Some may find video offensive and disturbing.
View at own risk.

( incidentally, I am a native Italian )

 🥱

 

I used the title as a joke.

See what happens when there's a small descent?

 

 

Poof! Gone. Luckily a one man descent a waco siege does not make. People laugh at it.

 

[nuDAN]

Okay, I'm gone here.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

From rule 2.7 

Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. 

 

But the reason the thread is closed is the dubious quality of the science under discussion.