3 ms·

> But I'm not talking about infants. I'm talking about people in general. You specifically responded to my comment which was a response to "I think people have

> But I'm not talking about infants. I'm talking about people in general. You specifically responded to my comment which was a response to "I think people have an instinct for enriching their genome...". INSTINCT. Something that's INBORN, not cultural. That's what I specifically responded to. You are being dishonest here. > Yeah he was wrong about that. But you overcorrected. Overcorrected? Oh give me a break. > Let me put this by itself. Really simple logic... But only 75% of their children have brown eyes. I'm so glad you caught on. So you do know a little bit about statistics. So now I know all your misleading replies are not based on ignorance but agenda. Now ask yourself, in your non-biased random world, which produces 75% brown eyes and 25% blue eyes, how some countries have nearly 90% blue eyes or over 50% blue eyes? Your logic proves that in the real world, there was a bias. I won't even bother with how a recessive mutation in a 99.99% brown-eyed world ( 8000 years or so ago ) can survive without some selection bias to begin with. https://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html https://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.h... For fun, put your two browned eyed people with recessive blue eyed genes with 98 other people without any blue eye recessive genes. And see how things work out without any bias. Randomly breed that population without bias and see how things turn out. But then again, you already know the answer right? Oh yeah, make it "real" and don't create exactly 4 offsprings either. And see how things really turn out. I just don't understand why people like you intentionally lie about such mundane stuff. I know that you know better since you "caught" my statistical "mistake". If you weren't wasting my and other people's time with lies, I wouldn't care. Heck, you are wasting your own time. I don't get it. I'll end it here. For reals this time. Have a nice day.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> Now ask yourself, in your non-biased random world, which produces 75% brown eyes and 25% blue eyes, how some countries have nearly 90% blue eyes or over 50% blue eyes? Your logic proves that in the real world, there was a bias. I never said there was no bias. Why do you spend so long arguing against things I didn't say? > For fun, put your two browned eyed people with recessive blue eyed genes with 98 other people without any blue eye recessive genes. And see how things work out without any bias. Randomly breed that population without bias and see how things turn out. But in the real world, those genes are in a pretty big fraction of people. No matter how you shuffle them around, you'll end up with tens of millions of people with blue eyes. > I just don't understand why people like you intentionally lie about such mundane stuff. What the fuck are you talking about? ...I got flagged for saying 'fuck', great.
artem247 5y ago
You shouldn't accuse anyone of lies if you fail to understand how genetics work. Recessive alleles are not "in danger", their number would not decrease over time if there is no bias. That's basics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle Also anti-miscegenation laws is not a universal thing, but rather a specific facet of an Enlightenment-era Western culture, along with slavery.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> Now ask yourself, in your non-biased random world, which produces 75% brown eyes and 25% blue eyes, how some countries have nearly 90% blue eyes or over 50% blue eyes? Your logic proves that in the real world, there was a bias. I never said there was no bias. Why do you spend so long arguing against things I didn't say? > For fun, put your two browned eyed people with recessive blue eyed genes with 98 other people without any blue eye recessive genes. And see how things work out without any bias. Randomly breed that population without bias and see how things turn out. But in the real world, those genes are in a pretty big fraction of people. No matter how you shuffle them around, you'll end up with tens of millions of people with blue eyes. > I just don't understand why people like you intentionally lie about such mundane stuff. What the fuck are you talking about? ...I got flagged for saying 'fuck', great.

artem247 5y ago

You shouldn't accuse anyone of lies if you fail to understand how genetics work. Recessive alleles are not "in danger", their number would not decrease over time if there is no bias. That's basics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle Also anti-miscegenation laws is not a universal thing, but rather a specific facet of an Enlightenment-era Western culture, along with slavery.