Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Hypothetical Question for "Preservationists": Evolution or Preservation?

  1. #1
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, April 6th, 2012 @ 01:58 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    Celtic-Norde(Wales, Denmark & Germany)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Queensland Queensland
    Gender
    Family
    Single Young Fella
    Occupation
    Student/Casual Work
    Politics
    Native National Socialist
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Hypothetical Question for "Preservationists": Evolution or Preservation?

    Suppose for a moment tommorrow a Spaceship lands in the world proclaiming to be the Masters of Valhalla(gods like Thor etc) and are a seemingly looking Nordic people

    However they possess some telekinetic powers, have average IQ 50 points above and are 2 feet higher(8 ft tall) then most Germanics

    With such obvious strengths would if given the chance a Germanic/Nordic person breed with these similar but "alien" types given the clear benefit for the current Germanic offspring? Or would it be best to leave each to their own despite the close Racial similarities?

    This is an issue of where people argue if Evolution rather then Preservation is the key.

    I know Preservation has got us through for the last few thousand yrs and slowly advanced us but I meet a few people who argue that evolution or continuance has benefits while Preservation is merely a position. I think both go hand in hand though what do you think?

    Comments?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Wychaert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 10th, 2019 @ 04:19 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Ancestry
    Gelderland
    Subrace
    Borreby/Dalofaelid/Nordid
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    State
    Gelderland Gelderland
    Location
    Betuwenaar in Salland
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Volks
    Religion
    Odalist
    Posts
    661
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    156
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    27 Posts
    I say: no!! I say: they will try to invade!! Kill them....
    ''Ginds de Waal, daar weer de IJssel, dan de Maas en ook de Rijn. Geeft ons recht om heel ons leven trots op Gelderland te zijn.''

  3. #3
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, April 6th, 2012 @ 01:58 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    Celtic-Norde(Wales, Denmark & Germany)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Queensland Queensland
    Gender
    Family
    Single Young Fella
    Occupation
    Student/Casual Work
    Politics
    Native National Socialist
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Donar Eijck View Post
    I say: no!! I say: they will try to invade!! Kill them....
    No I seriously conjectured this for open discussion I understand this may be a threat but(and these type of Super Homo Sapiens do exist- ANOTHER DISCUSSION THERE)
    could it just be an evolution for us Germanics?

    I was having a discussion with a fellow Engineer tonight on this issue I convinced him race was real and we were kindred blood Celtic-Germanic brothers however he saw little in the case of preserving something when instead we should be based on evolving the Germanic breed

    In the past I have placed threads on GE(with limited response) and argued we can have improvement by a self-expansion series of the genes the base would be germanic and self contained. This question though is this in a natural selection form.

    But say we have a set of genes now and arguments rage to improve them as we should what would be the defined set of ranges to which
    Is Preservation then about keeping the genes the same now or Greatly Improving Them?

    The purpose and benefit of Self-Preservation needs to be clear cut.
    To Keep the Same or Alter to a Higher Scale?
    To improve is a part of Darwins origin of species in section of natural selection

    And A little side-note,
    I also convinced him not to to go with some sex obsession for Indian(see I told everyone how poisonous pleasure is...) women and instead find a Aussie Girl for Propagation. He is now investigating it.
    Last edited by ozhammer; Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 10:29 PM. Reason: only part of that struggle prone night...

  4. #4
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 10:55 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,895
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,197
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,297
    Thanked in
    553 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ozhammer
    I know Preservation has got us through for the last few thousand yrs and slowly advanced us but I meet a few people who argue that evolution or continuance has benefits while Preservation is merely a position.
    Evolution for evolution's sake is merely a position too.

    It would be wrong to assume that preservation excludes evolution, the opposite is the case, every cat, dog or cattle breeder knows this. Selection is the key to evolution.

    Producing hybrids often has negative effects, the offspring usually is infertile, or doesnt survive at all, which is the case with most hybrids (luckily).

    Now, while the human races arent seperated long enough to be unable to interbreed, they develop probably since ~75K independently from each other, and we can observe the starting problems of hybrids today. Some interbreeding leads to blood groups problems resulting in auto-immune defects, and often to miscarriages too.

    The event that pinpoints that point in time 75K years back is the erruption of mount Toba, which eradicated most of the higher developed land species, including most humans. So at that point, very small numbers (10, 20 only) of regionally isolated groups became the "common ancestor" of all today living individuals of a population (which "dramatically" reduced bio-diversity, a process that was repeated some times since then though and brought forth, quite through this selection, very different races with different traits).

    At that point, evolution accelated, something known as the founder effect, where large changes occure by which many genes at once are affected, a process that repeated itself when 'we' interbred with the Neanderthals, which provoked a chainreaction in gene adaption and normalising of new genes into stabilized form in a very short time. Once the organism is optimally adapted to his environment, environmental pressed evolution slows down. It doesnt vanish though, it continues, and in this stabilized population, selection is the key to evolution (all species do that).

    The "lack" of bio-diversity actually is not a lack, but the very reason for why we are here and are able to type this into a computer. As said, every breeder knows this. And indeed, human evolution often was governed by conscious selection for certain traits. A woman looks for someone who reliably will protect the cave and his offspring and takes care of the food supply, so she will select someone who possesses these character traits. As the Russian Fox experiment has shown, selection for tameness (the only criterion) also had effects on the fur color and even the body stature, so we can assume that every such selection for character traits also has effects on the phenotype, and that in turn phenotype is an indicator for the general presence or absense of certain character traits.

    But also environmental pressure continued, new deseases that showed up like the pestilence brutally thinned out the population, selected those who happened to be well nurtured at that time, so today most Europeans possess a natural immunity against many mass deseases.


    So, in short, mixing up all those different populations with their unique traits that are a product of both the basic gene set and selection thereof to ever refine refine refine, undoes 10000s of years of evolution and actually destroys bio-diversity and evolution.

    Bio-diversity originally meant the endless variation of species. Today's pseudo-scientists want to apply it to one species, to one organism's set of genes. This is wrong though, because species are a product of selection, which is a process of reduction of gene-variants. So, without selection and seperation, there would only be bacterias inhabiting this planet.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  5. #5
    Senior Member Weitgereister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Online
    Sunday, August 19th, 2012 @ 01:50 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Alpine, Borreby & West Baltid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    North Carolina North Carolina
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Posts
    83
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    In my simple opinion, that sort of thing would, in the long run, make us lazy. A quick short cut to evolving our race isn't the answer - it's something that needs lots of time and it has to be earned by us as individuals and as a race.

  6. #6
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, April 6th, 2012 @ 01:58 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    Celtic-Norde(Wales, Denmark & Germany)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Queensland Queensland
    Gender
    Family
    Single Young Fella
    Occupation
    Student/Casual Work
    Politics
    Native National Socialist
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Evolution for evolution's sake is merely a position too.

    It would be wrong to assume that preservation excludes evolution, the opposite is the case, every cat, dog or cattle breeder knows this. Selection is the key to evolution.

    ....
    No this isnt what I was arguing on I was saying If we can Improve the breed via Such a godly intervention or On our own account through Genetic Engineering then isnt this the ultimate Benefit to our arguments for all those involved?

    Quote Originally Posted by ozhammer View Post
    No this isnt what I was arguing on I was saying If we can Improve the breed via Such a godly intervention or On our own account through Genetic Engineering then isnt this the ultimate Benefit to our arguments for all those involved?
    Your a 100% right here what I was talking about was Improving the Breed when Engineers/Scientists here improve they will be more willing to take notice. The position of Science is the greatest of all

    So what do you all think? GE all the way for our next offspring?

  7. #7
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 10:55 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,895
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,197
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,297
    Thanked in
    553 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ozhammer
    No this isnt what I was arguing on I was saying If we can Improve the breed via Such a godly intervention or On our own account through Genetic Engineering then isnt this the ultimate Benefit to our arguments for all those involved?
    This are two entirely different things.

    The one is called breeding or eugenics, which indeed is possible and basically what is the goal of what I outlined above. Nature (and the selection done by mating partners) aims constantly at improving, although, and I know many will hate that, it aims at "mediocrity", a well balanced state.

    The over-emphasizing of one single trait in order to create some super-spezialised for purpose x organism is a dead end. See the cheetah for example. It is the epitome of speed, an epitome of a hunter, it is muscles and strength pure.

    Back to the real world, the cheetah is a dying species. Not so much because we reduced its numbers to the point of near extinction, this adds merely a little speed to that process, but because the cheetah starves to death, literally. When it has successfully hunted a gazelle at 130km/h and needed 2 minutes to get it, the cheetah needs about 30-60 minutes to recreate. It is entirely unable to defend its prey, lions, hyaenas and vultures come and eat it away right out of its paws.

    So, a balanced organism is better than a highly specialised one. That's a general rule. Darwin did not say "the fittest (as in 'strongest') survive" but "those fit for their environment survive", which is something entirely different.


    You dont really want me to discuss "Nordic Space Aliens" though, no? Maybe Rassenhygieniker may say something to that topic, because he believes that Jesus was one. I wont say anything to that though.


    To the general question whether race-mixing would be justified through alleged "picking up beneficial genes", the answer is no. It never is, whether it's nordic space aliens or malaria-immune blacks. You see, if you think one could be beneficial, you have no more arguments besides your personal preferences to claim the other is not.

    And again: Selection is evolution. Selection is a reduction of gene-variants, while it creates a stabilized set of genes.

    Evolution is not throwing a million different genes into the pot and then hope that somehow the "good ones" will be those which at the end make up the well-adapted and well-balanced organism. The more different genes (or more correctly the alleles on these genes) you have, the more likely it is that you end up with defects.

    Look at genetic studies. Blacks have a far more varied gene pool than Europeans (because we went more often through the bottle-necks events). Blacks also have a far more varied pool of many different illnesses and defects than Europeans though. So, how is more genetic variants beneficial to a population? Answer: it is not beneficial.

    Question answered?
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

Similar Threads

  1. A Hypothetical Question Regarding Genetics
    By Meister in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 19th, 2011, 10:13 PM
  2. Question about the Surname "Smirnov" and "Humenik"!
    By Jorich in forum Genealogy & Ancestry DNA
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Monday, June 26th, 2006, 11:17 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 26th, 2004, 01:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •