Recessive genes.

A gene being recessive or not does not make it intrinsically better or worse than a dominant gene.

>>127918525
Dwarfism is dominant. Guess ugly 4 ft tall midgets are the master race.

>>127918525
>Having Liquid Snake's understanding of what a recessive gene is
This is burger education

>>127918525
>>127918678
if you have kids your recessive genes might transfer, recessive genes are therefore bad for your family legacy

>>127919402
A recessive gene just means it's less likely to be active in your offspring. This has no bearing on what the gene actually does when it IS active.
Did you not study biology in high school? I thought Sweden was supposed to be better than this, academically.

>>127919398
Liquid had the superior genes.

>>127919711
Do you realize that incest is only a problem because it increases the concentration of recessive genes in a population?

What are white Europeans famous for if not incest?

File: Consanguinity-world-map-Bittles.jpg (106KB, 815x522px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 815x522px

>>127920389
Consanguineous marriage is actually a much bigger issue in the middle east.

If the measure is intelligence then all other factors become irrelevant.
One simply moves toward whites or Asians.
My future wife will get an I.Q. test or three just to be sure she's worth the effort.
Candidates will likely be either white or Asian.

>>127919711
Does not mean it doesn't have a chance of showing up. But in the end it all depends on what you see as positive or negative gene.
For example, a blonde girl and a slightly darker haired man could get all ginger kids, because the mothers father had that gene. But since the mother carried that gene it was likely to transfer.
Same basic thing works with most things; eye color, skin color, spots, nose, etc.

>>127920389
That's because inbreeding makes it more likely that genetic diseases present in recessive genes have a bigger chance of being expressed, not because recessive genes are bad. There are a lot of genetic disorders that come from dominant genes, such as Huntington's disease or Neurofibromatosis type I.

Imagine a recessive gene that carries a disease being represented by the letter "a" and a dominant gene that does nothing being represented by the letter "A". If your chromosome has both genes, paired as Aa and your gf is also your sister who by chance has the same gene pair, your incestuous child has a 25% of not having the disease gene, as he might inherit both "A" genes, becoming "AA"; 50% of being a carrier without the genetic disease by inheriting an "a" gene from one of you and an "A" gene from the other; and the child also has a 25% chance of being born with the disease by inheriting both "a" genes and becoming "aa", in which case the absence of a dominant gene lets the recessive gene to express in the phenotype. That's where the danger of consanguinity comes from, not because recessive genes are bad

>>127922029
Thanks, Argiebro. That's a lot more effort than I would have put into it, lol.

File: 1488 Mail.jpg (17KB, 279x288px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 279x288px

>>127920389
What the fuck are you retards even on about? The reason Whites have recessive genes is because don't muhdik everything in sight, you fucking dumbass foreigner.