mixxed babies are beautiful, to bad certain girls werent mixxed then theyd have a better chance
[quote]
mixed always cute [/quote]
not necessarily, some mixed babies turn out “sorry-looking” (
I equate with saying “Black babies are cuter” or “White babies are cuter” or “Asian babies are cuter”. I would say very easily half of my family is of mixed races including my brother and sister, but to say that they have genetically superior looks because of this is practically the same thing some other guy said 70 years ago…only he was more into the monoracial thing rather than a multiracial one. Damn. I just went wa-ay off topic.
I am not a scientist, so this is entirely hearsay on my part, but I have been told by botanists that, generally speaking, first generations of “hybrids” in any species are almost always exceptionally healthy, robust, beautiful, etc. The next generation is almost always a disaster…
That’s nice. That means my grandkids will be a disaster… Not good.
I think what you mean is hybrids between species, not within a species. A mule (cross between horse and donkey) is a hybrid between species.
I wouldn’t consider a mixed race child a hybrid, and in my opinion, to do so reveals the ignorance of the speaker.
I think what you mean is hybrids between species, not within a species. A mule (cross between horse and donkey) is a hybrid between species. I wouldn’t consider a mixed race child a hybrid…[/quote]
And within the human species, the further apart the parents’ gene pools are, the “better” their children are likely to be (i.e., in terms of looks, health, talents, intelligence, etc.). You don’t need to have studied Darwin to know that. And based on the empirical evidence of the many mixed-race offspring I’ve observed, it’s true far more often than otherwise (though nurture and circumstance may rob many of the chance to realize most of their potential advantages).
BTW, Abekonge, while I’m sure that your botanist friends know a lot about cross-fertilization between different species of plants, I wonder if they are quite so authoritative on matters pertaining to biology?
I wonder if you are.
Precisely how many mixed race children are there whose looks, health, talents and intelligence you have investigated thoroughly enough, on a wide enough comparative basis, to offer as “empirical evidence” of their superiority? And do you know what you mean when you talk about a “gene pool”?
For all your sartorial eloquence (think about it) on “matters pertaining to” this and that, you are walking on very shaky ground.
I am in close contact with eurasian children on a daily basis and yes, off course they are smarter an more beautiful than any other kids I see here.
Strange that you should take umbrage at my innocent-enough remarks, Flatcap.
Do please explain why I’m “on shaky ground” in pointing out that, as far as I’ve observed, the offspring of the many mixed-race couples I’ve known (and there have been many of them, especially here in Taiwan) have tended to stand out at the better-looking, smarter, and more successful end of the spectrum among their peers. What on earth is there to take exception to in that? Most people I’ve ever discussed this with have said much the same thing.
In fact, the only reason I can think of for getting upset with comments like mine is that you subscribe to a set of beliefs which hold it to be “sinful” or “a crime against nature” for people of different races to form sexual unions. Surely you’re not one of that lot, are you, Flatcap? I have no idea, because I know nothing about you at all, and can’t remember having noticed anything you’ve posted before.
BTW, I did not mention having “investigated” anything. Were you misled by the use of the word “empirical”, which perhaps you associate with academic studies? Oh dear! 
I omitted to respond to this in my previous post, so here goes.
A gene pool is “the collective genetic information contained within a population of sexually reproducing organisms.”
To take our dear Mr. He as an example, the population of sexually reproductive people in his wife’s homeland of Taiwan has one gene pool, and the corresponding population of his homeland, Denmark, has a separate gene pool, and as these two gene pools are undoubtedly very far apart (however one interprets that), the children resulting from their union are, in his own words, which are perhaps slightly exaggerated but generally in keeping with what one would expect, “smarter and more beautiful than any other kids I see here.”
Is there something you can’t or don’t want to understand in any of that?
No umbrage or exception taken.
I have mixed race children.
What does anything I have posted before have to do with this thread?
Another time. Got to go.
Omni. At the risk of putting words into Flatcaps mouth. I suspect that what he is objecting to is making sweeping generalisations on superiority
( looks intellect etc) or otherwise based on race, mixed or otherwise. Replace “mixed” with “white” or "pure breed"in your comments to illustrate the issue.
No, that couldn’t be it, Scuba. “Mixed race” is not itself a race – it refers, of course, to a mixture of any two races, and therefore applies to all humankind. It is not making a distinction between people on the basis of their race, any more than describing someone as two-legged or bright-eyed is doing so. That is, or ought to be, so obvious that it couldn’t possibly have been misinterpreted in the twisted way you ascribe to Flatcap. Judging from the way he uses English, he seems to be a lot smarter than that.
Your argument doesnt really work for me
You are arguing that a mixed race child is intellectually (& in most other ways) superior to a child from parents of the same race. I dont really see the difference between this & the old & abhorrant argument that pure breed children are superior mixed .
Once you start making these kind of assumptions, you drive behaviour.eg studies have shown that if a teacher believes a particular child is superior thay will give them more attention & self fulfil the prophesy.
I think that is probably the shaky ground …but only flat cap can answer this
Thanks for telling me what I’m supposedly arguing, Scuba, but no thanks for getting it wrong.
To save you the trouble of reading my earlier post more carefully, let me repeat the gist of what I said in simpler terms here.
No, I am not saying, as you suggest, that a child of mixed race is sure to be intellectually and in other ways superior to children of same-race parents. Two same-race parents with excellent genes are much more likely to produce an outstanding child than parents of different races with substantially inferior genes. Pretty obvious, no?
BUT, if we have two sets of parents whose genetic quality is equal, and one pair is mixed race while the other is same race, then the former are MORE LIKELY to produce the “better” child (by which I mean smarter, more physically perfect, and so on, and which I put in inverted commas to show that it implies a value judgment about what constitutes better, on which different people will have different opinions). Is that clear enough?
Of course, if you subscribe to some nonsensical notion of political correctness that debars you from suggesting that one set of genes can be better than another, then there’s not much point in even trying to discuss such matters with you. But I’ll accord you the benefit of assuming that you’re not wearing that particular set of intellectual blinkers.
Now, assuming we agree that all genes are not created equal, and that some provide more desirable traits than others, let’s move on. If a mixed-race couple and a same-race couple who are all of equal genetic quality each have a child, the former can be expected to have advantages over the latter because that is the way nature works. When two sets of genes fuse to create a new set in the process of conception, nature in her infinite genius has so geared the mechanism that the best elements of each parent’s genes are more likely to be selected to make up the genes of the progeny. If the parents belong to the same race, they will possess so many genetic similarities that nature won’t have so much to choose from and will have to select a large percentage of less-than-ideal elements. Whereas if the parents belong to different races, they will possess a much higher proportion of genetic differences, giving nature much more scope to pick and choose and create something altogether better than either of its parents.
That’s all pretty much incontrovertible, isn’t it? It’s plain, simple biological fact. It’s the basis on which farmers have learnt to cross-breed their animals to produce better strains. We picked up on that one way back in the time of the agricultural revolution.
So, to put it in a nutshell, cross-breeding of humans or any other animals produces a tendency toward improvement of the herd. It does not mean that every cross-bred creature will be superior to its thoroughbred brethren, but it does give the herd an advantage. It’s the way genes work! A child ought to know that much – even if it has same-race parents. 
I don’t think Scuba was suggesting it is impossible for one set of genes to be superior to another, any more than I was. The “shaky ground” I referred to earlier lies in the interpretation of “superiority” and what causes it. I think you are overplaying the gene hand. I maintain that the “intelligence” and “talent” you have observed in mixed race children is more likely to be a product of greater (cultural?) variety in parental input than in their genetic makeup. In other words, nurture over nature. I wouldn’t argue that more genetic variety has a tendency to produce better physical health. As for “looks”, that’s a bloody earthquake zone, though I have a natural inclination to agree with you (based on observation, of course 
).
Evolutionary psychology (formerly sociobiology), is indeed a highly controversial area. I look forward to reading more of your views.
One more point, I must concede on the “empirical” thing. I’d better bone up if I want to get out of manual labour this side of fifty.
The whole contention that mixed race children are superior because they have access to a more diverse gene pool falls apart when you discover, as contemporary geneticists have, that 85% of the gene variation in the human race occurs between individuals of the same race - not between separate races. That is to say, though may seem counterintuitive, two random Danes will have less DNA in common than either would have with a random Taiwanese.
Point two, we are all, to varying degrees, “mixed” races - none of us are pureblood anything. Sheesh, I’m an American - a mutant mongrel by definition. I may look “white” on the surface but there’s plenty of Injun and African blood boiling underneath. Places like Japan and Iceland where the people are genetically “pure” are few and far between.
I usually agree with you, Omni, but not here. Granted, everyone knows that too much inbreeding is a bad thing, but that’s mostly because of recessive diseases, like hemophelia, that don’t affect you unless you get a bad copy of the same gene from both parents.
[quote=“Omniloquacious”]
Now, assuming we agree that all genes are not created equal, and that some provide more desirable traits than others, let’s move on. If a mixed-race couple and a same-race couple who are all of equal genetic quality each have a child, the former can be expected to have advantages over the latter because that is the way nature works. When two sets of genes fuse to create a new set in the process of conception, nature in her infinite genius has so geared the mechanism that the best elements of each parent’s genes are more likely to be selected to make up the genes of the progeny. [/quote]
Not really. Right now your privates are rearranging your chromosomes in countless ways. Each of your little swimmers will have different a combination of genes, recombined from what you got from your mother and father. Your offspring will get one copy of each gene from you and your partner, but nature doesn’t really get to choose that the “better” copy is included in the new set–ALL of them are in there. The child will get one set of genes from you and the other from mom. It’s true that some traits are more dominant than others.
Again, the child gets a set of genes from each side. The rearrangements you’re talking about happen before fertilization.
Bollocks.
Mixed-race kids are more beautiful. End of story, nothing to discuss. The rest of you are just jealous.