Hey Constantly Learning, thanks for the added voice. I think it is fantastic that you have been racially adventurous. We need more people like you out there. Take care and hope to hear from you again.

PS: Yes, it is okay, and I fully agree about the need for head in ass removal.

Personally, I have dated women of all races. I am a white male. I have dated blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, and a really hot Chilean. The one thing I have noticed is that whomever I dated, there was chemistry. Folks today more than ever before are dating outside their race.

Me personally? I honestly prefer black women. In my experiances, which I would consider extensive as far as interracial relationships go, they treat me better as a significant other. I have found there are peculiar differences in females based on cultures and environments.

Is that everyones bag of tea? No.

The idea introduced here about interracial relationships diluting the bad dna/genes out is an interesting benefit that I had not really thought of. I hope our species is able to pull its collective head out of its ass (am I allowed to say that?) before we damage the world and our genetics to the point we exterminate ourselves.

Thanks for the comment Jerry, but I am not sure I follow your logic. People that are the same as you are more exciting the people that are different? That's like saying I eat the same thing for lunch everyday for the excitement. The logic seems backwards. Either you just plain don't like people of other race or... I don't know, but the bore thing is hard to understand. I would love it if you could elaborate on your rationale. Again, either way, we thank you for your contribution.

I am someone who bores easily with races of those other than my own. For that reason I would not want an African American or
a Hispanic in my immediate realm of associations. I don't hate them, they just bore me. And I particulary don't like pandering up to someone just because of their race. Thats ridiculous and I see it all the time. The issue of racism is far too
complicated for someone like me to solve so therefore I don't
spend too much time on it.

Okay Anon, that comment was much better, and I appreciate the care you took in explaining your point. The person that wrote this comment sounds remarkably different then the one that wrote the prior one. Your make some interesting points and most of what you say is pretty sound. Unfortunately I do not have time to get into the specifics at the moment, as reply in full would take a significant amount of time.

My global stance on our disagreement is that you extrapolated an extreme meaning out of what I wrote. You said:

I am sure there are others but your article draws the conclusion that individual races are a festering cesspool which can only be cured by interracial sex to dilute the “bad” genes. I would argue they already are mixed and without a full genetic profile of every partner you have, there is no way to know who is carrying what. It doesn’t boil down to producing a racially-hybridized race of supermen and women immune to all disease but rather personal sexual preference with a strong favortism to positive assortative sexual selection.

I was not meaning to infer that our races are genetic cesspools. I was just bringing to light a scientific rationale for why interracial relations are not as "horrible" as some people may think. And, if we continue to apply the health/medical care industry into the fabric of society like we are, we will weaken our genetic pool. I am just saying that interracial mixing may help strengthen our gene pool, but I never said we could eradicate disease and create superhumans. If you miscomprehend the meaning of my article, then that is your own fault.

This is not a scientific or medical blog as I do not claim to be an expert in anything, except exercise physiology as I am a certified trainer and have been for nearly 10 years.

This blog is first and foremost for entertainment and to get an insight into other viewpoints or perspectives to what is the social standard. You stated:

"It is your blog but along with having this website comes a tremendous amount of social responsibility you and your female compatriot seem to have ignored. You make some very dangerous and highly controversial claims no doubt to be seen as culturally “progressive”. I am sure some high schoolers who don’t know any better find this site and think these highly controversial articles are the product of a well learned and researched point of view, from my readings that doesn’t seem to be the case. Exercise your first amendment rights, you have them…but you might want to consider asterisking where scientific fact ends and your own personal opinion begins."

What you are conveying is complete BS, sorry, but this is the same thing as blaming Marylin Manson for the Columbine Shooting or rap music for black on black crime. The media just represents the society, not vice versa. The responsibility is on the parents not on people like me or 50 Cent. If we were not aligned with what the public was wanting we would not be successful, but we are, so that means we are saying what the public is hungry to hear.

People just want to blame some third party for what is wrong with America, but all the fault is on the parents of today. Why? Because they suck, and you can take that literally. If some kid wants to use our blog as the bible of life, then that is his/her own fault.

And please, when something could actually be harmful to someone, I write some sort of disclaimer to warm people, but when it comes to stuff like this, there is no harm in following my advice.

If some white kid wants to date a black girl because of this article, then I consider that a positive, as that is one less unit that is racially divided. If you want to argue over semantics on the degree of correctness each have, then I am not interested. You have mentioned in the article that what I am conveying is "based" off fact, right? Maybe I went a little far pushing the fact, but who cares? What real harm could I do? None.

If you want a 100% scientifically accurate articles with dry, non-interesting data and graphs with 25 cited resources that is not entertaining for what ever reason, then go somewhere else. This site is meant to entertain as much as it is to inform. If I write about disease states in particular and how to remedy them or something that could be of danger to someone, then I make sure that I am 100% percent accurate. Other than that, just read what you like and take it as it is supposed to be taken, interesting perspectives for alternative views.

Thanks for the courteous reply. Take care.

Your reference to "heterozygote advantage" is assuming such an advantage can be measured in a reasonable amount of time. Mice and Fruit flies are an ideal candidate because their reproductive periods and life cycles happen over a relatively small and easily measured period. The same can't be said for humans who undergo a 9 month gestation and at least a 12 year growth period before puberty when they are reproductively viable. This is under ideal circumstances considering possible complications with the child and is not the cultural norm! These studies also say nothing of race involved in the pairing. Have you even considered existing racial admixture in your hastily thrown together response? i.e. that in spite of whites and blacks appearance (phenotype) or any race for that matter they both carry historical admixture of genes (genotype) from each others race already? You are making the incorrect assumption that all races are genetically "pure" and to your flawed logic thats why interbreeding would have an impact. There is no such thing as a "pure" race, only people separated by geographical boundaries and compartmentalized neatly to make it easier to identify physical differences.

Assortation is selective breeding based on phenotype traits where heterozygy refers to a specific gene or genes responsible for a particular heritable trait. The two are not interchangeable and are only related through the fact that one can be but is not necessarily responsible for the other. Whites overwhelmingly (greater than 95%) select white partners, blacks with blacks etc. This isn't just a freak happening, its population biology at work. Its not racism either, this is a rational biological process of sexual selection at work, like pursues like i.e. positive assortation. The media is absolutely responsible for social behavior. By constantly portraying white women as the pinnacle of human beauty people go through a sort of cultural brainwashing. Minorities in America have made leaps and bounds in this department and good for them, being white is not the standard by which all other things are measured and I don't agree with it.

Lets discuss mitochindrial Eve. The reference wasn't to mitochondrial DNA. It was towards a population bottleneck she is associated with where the entire human race was almost rendered extinct. A dramatic reduction in the human population like this would limit overall genetic diversity between all races globally since in theory they all came from a single source. The estimated time of 140,000 years is not long enough for our species to have significantly changed through mutation or evolution to where you seem to believe we are. If that were the case we would have followed a speciation pathway, most likely allotropic, and we would no longer be able to interbreed with one another. Once again I will repeat what I originally said and add to it this context. If we are all descended from a single source and relatively recently in history, there is not enough genetic variation in the entire population to support your argument.

On the subject of dog genetics. Yes there are identified genetic disorders associated with breeding for a phenotype and ignoring the hidden and all important genotype underlying it. Humans however don't breed specifically to have a water rescue human, or a sled human or for any specific physical traits for that matter other than producing (in theory) healthier offspring. If the human inbreeding were as intense as dogs has been historically you may have a point, but given the extremely limited genetic diversity of the population due to mitochondrial Eve its simply impossible.

Lets say we do want to talk about a genetic disease in humans though, a common well known usually fatal one...lets pick sickle cell anemia. This was actually an environmental mutation and adaptation to malaria. Unfortunately the mutation carried with it the deleterious side effect of damaging red blood cell membranes. Interestingly enough this disease can be found outside of its native population in sub-saharan Africa and even in whites who can both carry and even transmit the disorder. I suppose this means there was already some historical genetic admixture and that interracial sex, as you so coyly put it, seems to have actually helped to propagate it. Using a Punnett square we can see that 2 carriers independent of their race and producing children at random have a 1 in 4 chance of producing an infected child. The same odds apply to producing a healthy non-carrier 1 in 4. The remaining 50% (2 in 4) will unknowingly become carriers themselves. In fact this and possibly anemia due to royal inbreeding were the only racially linked genetic disorders I could come up with off the top of my head. I am sure there are others but your article draws the conclusion that individual races are a festering cesspool which can only be cured by interracial sex to dilute the "bad" genes. I would argue they already are mixed and without a full genetic profile of every partner you have, there is no way to know who is carrying what. It doesn't boil down to producing a racially-hybridized race of supermen and women immune to all disease but rather personal sexual preference with a strong favortism to positive assortative sexual selection.

It is your blog but along with having this website comes a tremendous amount of social responsibility you and your female compatriot seem to have ignored. You make some very dangerous and highly controversial claims no doubt to be seen as culturally "progressive". I am sure some high schoolers who don't know any better find this site and think these highly controversial articles are the product of a well learned and researched point of view, from my readings that doesn't seem to be the case. Exercise your first amendment rights, you have them...but you might want to consider asterisking where scientific fact ends and your own personal opinion begins.

You know, I went back and re-read anon's comment on the promotion of white women as the pinnacle of breeding, and I have to ask if he has never bothered to look at the success of current social figures such as Beyonce. He also probably missed the recent articles about the banning of ultra skinny models from most of the worlds fashion shows as being "too socially radical" in the views of representing the general public.

OK, I may not be able to cite reference points like this, and my knowledge of in depth genetics is very limited, however, I do have a background and interest in microbiology. Unfortunately for the world, I didn't stick with it. LOL I did however stick with the realm of logic, science, and business as general interests.

OK, after cerebral's long and arduous typing, I have to first admit to being impressed. It has been a while since I enjoyed reading a blog this much, and can verify most of what he says simply through the basic study knowledge of genetics that I have done on my own.

Therefore, as a stated non-expert in the field of genetics and randomizing DNA structure, I am going to try and relate this to something I do know about in analogy, and that is business.

Take for example that you have two businesses that are virtually the same in structure and construction, yet both of them have inherent problems within that structure. If you combine the two businesses based on the planning characteristics of the management (the DNA) and both flaws are mutually exclusive, the business thrives like nothing is wrong until it gets to a point where suddenly this hole appears in the operations that no one realized was there. In biology this would be referred to a genetic anomaly. This happens all the time and while most people wouldn't think of it as harmful, consider the current rise in the population suffering from diabetes, a proven genetically based disease or "anomaly". (Being diabetic this hits home). Is diabetes based on one single race? No. Is it growing faster in certain races, yes. Recent medical articles have shown it especially in underdeveloped countries where the closer "breeding" of a certain racial "species" is maintained more by economics than by choice.

Once a business identifies this "hole" in it's operations, the best and most reasonable way to recalculate and fix the problem is not by injecting more of the same "DNA" that caused the problem into the problem, it is to reorganize the management of the system by bringing in new management to correct the problem, in the case of genetics this would include the introduction of DNA series and patterns from other races, or "companies." OK, so my analogy isn't perfect, but it should give another angle on which to look at what is going on. A business with a major problem dies, just like an organism does. Different ideas and inputs are necessary for it to survive. Therefore, it makes no sense to restrict the possibility of the total chance of survival by restricting itself to only one thought process or "DNA pool".

In the long run, it is the same with both animal and human genetics. One of the things I used to do with my ex was to breed poodles and pet birds. A growing problem in the genetics of purebred "show quality" poodles is a degeneration of the lower mandible to the point that the bones are virtually too fragile for anything but specialized feeding. Yet these ultra fragile traits are actually considered optimal by some breeders. (Why I have no clue, I would rather have a dog that could eat than one that had to be practically spoon fed.) The only way to correct it is to bring a "mutt" poodle in with the stronger lower mandible to reintroduce the survivability of the species. Yes, they are still purebred, but the "bad trait" has been eliminated.

I know that to a lot of people, my analogies here may not make sense, but in the overall picture, it does show that a non-racist, non-prejudiced ideal of interracial mixing does have survivability benefits for the entire human race as a whole. Or should we all just adopt the attitude of Ebeneezer Scrooge: "If they are want to die then they had better get on with it and reduce the surplus population."

Anon -- I will translate all the overly used "big" words, so that all the readers will discover your racial, immature and completely false conjecture.

This is merely an excuse to placate your own guilty conscience on the subject of racial miscegenation.

Translated- "You are using this article's concept to appease or pleasure your own guilty conscious on the subject of interracial relations." This lets me know that you are a racist pig and you are projecting that onto me. I do not have a guilty conscious about interracial relations, you do.

Let me familiarize you with some cold hard facts of real biology. Since you took the time to post a photo of DNA which obviously means you are at the apex of knowledge in the field.

This one doesn't need translating, but I will address the ridiculousness of what you just said. I can tell you are falsely presenting yourself as smart. Either that, or you lack all deductive reasoning. If you rate my intelligence on what pictures I post for the article, you are judging intelligence in an extremely fallible way. Don't you think just about anyone can type in DNA into Wikipedia and find a photo of a DNA molecule, and using such logic would lead you to false conclusions?

For the overwhelming majority of species including humans, like pursues like. This is known as positive assortation. Negative assortation is a social aberration.

This shows that you are, again, a racist with falsely presented intelligence. Your stated facts are completely nonsensical and you are using an overinflated vocabulary as a slight of hand in trying to win-over people in your convoluted ranting.

You say, "For the overwhelming majority of species including humans, like pursues like [this is somewhat correct, but the reasons are more subjective than objective]. This is known as positive assortation [correct -- Homogeneous or similar mating]. Negative assortation is a social aberration [aberration means: A departure from the normal or typical, so yes it is not the norm, but that has nothing to do with what the article was about.]" Just because something is not normally done does not mean it is not right.

What you refer to as negative assortation, is also called heterozygosity. Here is why I am right, from Wikipedia.org:

Heterozygote advantage in theory

When two populations of any sexual organism are separated and kept isolated from each other, the frequencies of deleterious mutations in the two populations will differ over time, by genetic drift. It is highly unlikely, however, that the same deleterious mutations will be prevalent in both populations after a long period of separation. Since loss-of-function mutations tend to be recessive (given that dominant mutations of this type generally prevent the organism from reproducing and thereby passing the gene on to the next generation), the result of any cross between the two populations will be fitter than the parent.

Experimental confirmation

Cases of heterozygote advantage have been demonstrated in several organisms, including humans. The first experimental confirmation of heterozygote advantage was with Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly that has been a model organism for genetic research. In a classic study, Kalmus demonstrated how polymorphism can persist in a population through heterozygote advantage.

Heterozygote advantage in human genetics

Since the genetic disorder is incompletely recessive, a person with only one SCA allele and one unaffected allele will have a "mixed" phenotype: The sufferer will not experience the ill effects of the disease, yet will still possess a sickle cell trait, whereby some of the red blood cells undergo benign effects of SCA, but nothing severe enough to be harmful. Those afflicted with sickle-cell trait are also known as carriers: If two carriers have a child, there is a twenty-five percent chance that their child will have SCA, a fifty percent chance that their child will be a carrier, and a twenty-five percent chance that the child will neither have SCA nor be a carrier. Were the presence of the SCA allele to confer only negative traits, we would expect its allele frequency to decrease generation after generation, until its presence were completely eliminated by selection and by chance.

Heterozygote advantage and cystic fibrosis

The presence of a single CF mutation may influence survivorship of people affected by diseases involving loss of body fluid, typically due to diarrhea. The most common of these maladies is cholera, which throughout history has killed many Europeans. Those with cholera would often die of dehydration due to intestinal water losses. A mouse model of CF was used to study resistance to cholera, and the results were published in Science in 1994 (Gabriel, et al). The heterozygote (carrier) mouse had less secretory diarrhea than normal, non-carrier mice. Thus it appeared for a time that resistance to cholera explained the selective advantage to being a carrier for CF and why the carrier state was so frequent.

Possible heterozygote advantage with Tay-Sachs disease

An issue of debate is whether Tay-Sachs, the genetic disorder, may have once provided a heterozygote advantage in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. The disease is autosomal recessive. In its most common form, paralysis, dementia, blindness, and death occur within a few years after birth. Approximately one in every 27 Ashkenazi Jews is a carrier of Tay-Sachs, and the common Ashkenazi mutation is also prevalent among the Cajuns of southern Louisiana. It occurs at a low rate in several other Jewish populations. An unrelated mutation, which produces the same pathology, is common among French Canadians.

Heterozygote advantage and Triose Phosphate Isomerase

Triose Phosphate Isomerase (TPI) is a central enzyme of glycolysis, the main pathway for cells to obtain energy metabolizing carbon sugars. In humans, certain mutations within this enzyme which affect the dimerisation of this protein are causal for a rare disease, Triose Phosphate Isomerase deficiency. Other mutations, which inactivate the enzyme (= null alleles) are lethal when inherited homozygously (two defect copies of the TPI gene), but have no obvious effect as heterozygotes (one defect and one normal copy). However, the frequency of heterozygous null-alleles is much higher than expected, indicating a heterozygous advantage for TPI null alleles as well.

Is that enough for you, or shall I go on? Does that sound like a scientifically false concept now? All smart people would say NO! Do you want to argue otherwise? I didn't think so.

Unfortunately due to advertising the world at large is bombarded with the ideology that the white women is the pinnacle of human beauty. Socialization is responsible for this behavior, not a superior physical or genetic outcome of the coupling.

Hmmm, yea... let's blame the media for that darn logical, scientific "non-sense" of genetic heterozygosity, and its confirmed advantageous claims [sarcasm].

On the subject of genetics. There is not enough genetic variation in the entire human population to support your argument.

Hmmm, if certain genetic diseases are more prevalent in certain races than others, it would make perfectly good scientific rationale that mixing the genetic variances of another race would have a confirmed beneficial affect on trying to control the genetic disease in offspring.

You should take the time to research “mitochondrial eve” and then revise this article.

Do you even know what your talking about? Mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA is the DNA that is for the mitochandria only [and yes the mtDNA are only passed down by the female parent], and it has nothing to do with what I am talking about here -- cellular DNA. I am not even going to explain this mtDNA, because your claim is so erroneous.

Using dogs as a comparison is a weak support here as well. Canis Familiaris was selectively bred, whether by the species itself or by human interaction, for a primary social function along with some pleasing phenotype results. The differences in human physical characteristics are the direct result of population inbreeding and genetic isolation due to geographical boundaries. I recommend you research biogeography, particularly island based species of the malaysian archipelago or madagascar.

What?! Canis Familiaris? Who in the hell are you trying to impress? They are called dogs! WTF?! This statement is so ridiculous, I don't know if I can even address it. I have the hardest time trying to figure out how your theory of why or how dogs and humans became to differ has anything to do with how genetic science works. Let's see what an expert has to say about this, "[Hyp dysplasia] is primarily a disease of purebreds although it can happen in mixed breeds, particularly if it is a cross of two dogs that are prone to developing the disease." - peteducation.com

I wonder why they say "primarily a disease of purebreds" could it be that genetics may have something to do with it-- like your positive assortative mating? And since we all know that this same "Heterozygote/negative assortative" has an advantage for humans as well, I say that I just debunked your whole theory.

With no references to any viable research in your blog this article is at best conjecture. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but begin quoting half-science and you just sound ignorant.

I am sorry, did I break your blogging rule of the day? I did not know that I had to quote my resources like I am writing for Wikipedia. As far as sounding ignorant... well, you can read between the lines, can't you?

This is our blog, and most of this article was taken from years of educating myself and some plain old common sense about genetics. If you want to question my sources, then just ask me, but don't pretend to be an intellectual when you are obviously not. This was just disrespectful, rude, and it made apparent your insecurities and fears about racial issues. If you want to believe in racism then comment on some other site. I will recommend this site as the science is probably right up your alley.

As far as you having a rebuttal, I doubt you will even be back. But, if you do, just be yourself. Stop trying to be something your not. I am sorry for getting at you like I did, but I am really tired of how people feel invincible on the internet and just say what ever they want without any accountability.

This is merely an excuse to placate your own guilty conscience on the subject of racial miscegenation. Let me familiarize you with some cold hard facts of real biology. Since you took the time to post a photo of DNA which obviously means you are at the apex of knowledge in the field.

In biology there are 2 types of association, negative assortative and positive assortative. For the overwhelming majority of species including humans, like pursues like. This is known as positive assortation. Negative assortation is a social aberration. Unfortunately due to advertising the world at large is bombarded with the ideology that the white women is the pinnacle of human beauty. Socialization is responsible for this behavior, not a superior physical or genetic outcome of the coupling.

On the subject of genetics. There is not enough genetic variation in the entire human population to support your argument. You should take the time to research "mitochondrial eve" and then revise this article. Using dogs as a comparison is a weak support here as well. Canis Familiaris was selectively bred, whether by the species itself or by human interaction, for a primary social function along with some pleasing phenotype results. The differences in human physical characteristics are the direct result of population inbreeding and genetic isolation due to geographical boundaries. I recommend you research biogeography, particularly island based species of the malaysian archipelago or madagascar.

With no references to any viable research in your blog this article is at best conjecture. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but begin quoting half-science and you just sound ignorant.