Partial re-post from: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/racial-realities-mixed-race-fertility-and-neanderthals/
I wanted to expand a little because it’s ridiculous that I’m the top search result and I want to encourage public, detailed research on this topic.
Speciation is an ongoing process, it’s part of evolution, also an ongoing force. As members of a sub-species, better known as race, continue to diverge over time, the characteristic event will be infertility, fertility issues, birth defects and miscarriage. Once it is born, a failure to thrive and reproduce itself would also count as an adverse selection pressure.
My simple question: do we see this?
Oh, boy. Grab a drink, tall one.
The mixed-race dating pool is limited, to the other mixed-race, for example.
This lowers the potential fitness of the organism, compared to its parents’ baseline.
I’ll take a biomedical approach, from the limited information available.
“From EurekaAlert, Asian-white couples face distinct pregnancy risks…:”
Asians have a lower median birth weight, a racial difference as real as shorter African gestation periods compared to Whites.
“Although past studies have looked at ethnic differences in perinatal outcomes, the majority of research has focused on white- African-American couples. Few studies have focused specifically on Asian-white couples, said El-Sayed, who is also associate chief of maternal-fetal medicine.
More specifically, the researchers found that white mother/Asian father couples had the lowest rate (23 percent) of caesarean delivery, while Asian mother/white father couples had the highest rate (33.2 percent). Because birth weights between these two groups were similar, the researchers say the findings suggest that the average Asian woman’s pelvis may be smaller than the average white woman’s and less able to accommodate babies of a certain size.”
Nature is trying to tell you something there.
There is a clear natural selection pressure exerting itself.
Also, C-section birth puts the baby at a distinct disadvantage, those children have a weakened immune system, poorer health and fare worse in pair bonding.
Learning disability is on the tag list. Look for yourself.
It doesn’t decrease infant mortality and can actually kill the mother over time.
It’s serious surgery.
“It becomes routine but it is still a major surgery. That carries a long-term effect on maternal health.”
“Compared with women having a vaginal birth, those having a C-section for the first time have… a 5.7 times greater risk of an unplanned hysterectomy”
Nature is telling you something there.
“El-Sayed and his colleagues also found that the incidence of gestational diabetes was lowest among white couples at 1.61 percent and highest among Asian couples at 5.73 percent – and just under 4 percent for Asian-white couples. These findings weren’t altogether surprising: past studies have shown an increased risk of diabetes among Asian couples, which researchers attribute to an underlying genetic predisposition. But the interesting finding, El-Sayed said, was that the risk for interracial couples was about the same regardless of which parent was Asian.”
Dominant genes? No!
“Because of the results on Caesarean section rates they adduce that there is a pelvic size difference between Asian women and white women. Objective male observer acquaintances of mine have generally tended to back up this phenotypic difference between the populations.”
They’re shaped like pre-pubescent boys. Why else get surgery?
You should study it formally though. Asians have the lowest sexual dimorphism and it’s important to know the numbers.
“Although births of multiracial and multiethnic infants are becoming more common in the United States, little is known about birth outcomes and risks for adverse events. We evaluated risk of fetal death for mixed race couples compared with same race couples and examined the role of prematurity and low birth weight as potential mediating risk factors.”
Miscegenation doesn’t work, even with modern medicine.
This applies to black-white pairings too.
It is a disgrace adults are marrying without knowledge of the biology involved.
“Mixed race black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight, which appear to contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth. There are likely additional unmeasured factors that influence birth outcomes for mixed race couples.”
I cannot find a stillbirth study for Asian-White pairings, I’m sorry. Is it so common they need not study it?
I am looking, nobody is studying it.
I’m sorry, I am looking. It would be nicer if fewer babies were dying.
We have anecdotes?
“Most people don’t discuss miscarriages because you worry your problems will distance you or reflect upon you — as if you’re defective or did something to cause this.” Mate choice is something you did. The baby didn’t choose to be conceived by you two. Part of your biology must be defective because miscarriage is an outcome of defective conception and/or pregnancy (there are many possible reasons, some environmental, a few random plus ‘stress’). It sounds cruel but yes, medically, something is wrong.
OT: Jews have a non-White miscarriage rate.
Jews invented/funded IVF because they needed it.
Israel is a eugenic ethnostate.
“The issue of the rate of recurrent miscarriages in high-risk Jewish women is unresolved.”
I am biting my tongue.
When trying really hard, the only evidence for hybrid vigour in White Americans vs. mulattos, which they sought to prove (scientism) is “relatively small.” …Is it present or not?
“this study provides evidence [DS: the evidence isn’t proof?] that increased stature and cognitive function have been positively selected in human evolution, whereas many important risk factors for late-onset complex diseases may not have been.”
That’s bullshit, everyone is getting taller and getting better grades.
May not have been? In Nature?
Listen to the twisting in this: http://www.medicaldaily.com/g00/interracial-couples-may-make-taller-smarter-children-due-greater-genetic-diversity-341348
“Meanwhile, human evolution is more focused on the ability to create healthy offspring and have them survive infancy to continue raising them.”
…Yes, it is.
“Whether you come from a genetically diverse background or not, in the end even the most common medical ailments that affect society will affect everyone, with genetic diversity having little to no impact.”
No, genes. The most common fatal medical ailments aren’t a cold, they’re genetic-based, it’s established fact. And if it had no impact, why push it?
“It combines the parents’ genetic material, resulting in offspring that possess a unique set of genetic blueprints that increase their chances of surviving and thriving compared to a population with limited genetic variability.”
No such thing. Limited genetic variability? No such thing. Where is this thing?
They’re just talking absolute crap to cover how their study was a non-result. Every genome is unique, between twins even. Thriving and surviving varies by individual genome, that should be studied by the natal people. You know this. You hide the scant data that is there with delusions. This is propaganda. It continues:
“This encapsulates Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection,”
No, he wrote a whole book. Look at the subtitle to The Origin of the Species.
Natural selection is about death and mortality, which you have not studied. Disease is not death.
“where individuals with characteristics that increase their probability of survival”
how? like being able to give birth?
“will have more opportunities to reproduce,”
in a limited dating pool
“according to the University of California, Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution.”
If California understood evolution, it would be Alaska.
“As a result, their offspring will benefit from the variants,”
no, not if they’re the more common disadvantageous mutations or if the combination is novel and fatal
“which will spread throughout the population.”
No, you’re assuming they breed. Infertility exists, and it exists on a spectrum.
“This is an increased risk equivalent to smoking, advanced maternal age or obesity.”
“While other research has found the mother’s ethnicity places a role in the risk of a stillbirth, this has largely been put down to factors related to migration and social disadvantage. What our research shows is women born in South Asia and giving birth in Australia are at increased risk even when other factors are taken into account.”
“There is growing evidence to suggest a mother’s ethnicity influences how fast her placenta ages as her pregnancy progresses.”
Asian placenta is old, got it.
“For some women, they can go into spontaneous labour sooner. In our study, we found South Asian-born women went into labour a median one week earlier than Australian- or New Zealand-born women.”
Racial differences in gestation duration, again.
“However, for others, an ageing placenta cannot meet the fetus’ increasing metabolic needs at term and beyond. And this increases the risk of stillbirth.”
Infertility, insufficient maternal resources for the fetus. That’s a kind of infertility. Considering how skinny they are and how those female curves are supposed to feed a baby, historically, this is not surprising.
Nature is aborting babies that would starve. Before it kills the mother too.
“And the length of telomeres in placentas from pregnancies ending in stillbirth are two times shorter than those from live births. In other words, the placental cells had aged faster.”
Superior Asian genetics people might wanna cover their innocent eyes.
“Some researchers have also studied ethnic differences in placental telomere length.
In an American study, placental telomeres from pregnancies in black women were significantly shorter than from pregnancies in white women (the ethnic backgrounds of the women were not further defined in the study).”
Superior European placentas. As you’d expect for the one race hit hard by an Ice Age. Perhaps this is an unknown r/K variable.
“Whether telomeres are shorter in placentas from pregnancies in South Asian-born women is unknown.”
Oh, I think I can guess.
“There was a high prevalence of stillbirth in this multi-ethnic urban population. The increased risk of stillbirth observed in non-White women remains after adjusting for other factors.”
Whites are different? Biologically? Shudder-gasp!
Let’s see if BMI matters.
Yes. Of course it does. They only studied high BMI though.
“However, BMI does not take into account the relative proportions of fat and lean tissue and cannot distinguish the location of fat distribution”
“However, these are based on information derived from the general population, based on risk of mortality, without consideration for racial or ethnic specificity and were not determined to specifically identify those at risk for diabetes. Recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented initial findings from an oversampling of Asian Americans in the 2011–2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. These data, utilizing general population criteria for obesity, showed the prevalence of obesity in Asian Americans was only 10.8% compared with 34.9% in all U.S. adults (13). Paradoxically, many studies from Asia, as well as research conducted in several Asian American populations, have shown that diabetes risk has increased remarkably in populations of Asian origin, although in general these populations have a mean BMI significantly lower than defined at-risk BMI levels (14,15). Moreover, U.S. clinicians who care for Asian patients have noticed that many with diabetes do not meet the published criteria for obesity or even overweight.”
So we’d need to look at WHR, instead of BMI.
“In women, the connection between WHR and health measures appears to be hormonal. It is known that ratios of estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin affect all of these features. The “right” balance promotes both health and low WHR. One version of the “attractiveness theory” posits that our attraction to this body shape developed as an indicator of overall health.”
“Another crucial part of the attractiveness theory of wait-hip-ratio (WHR) is that this body shape has to be indicative of something related to fertility, or else it wouldn’t have any evolutionary value.
The key feature in a potential mate is biological fitness, that is, the potential to give birth to many healthy and successful offspring.
Desirable females, in the evolutionary sense, are those that are likely to be healthy, fertile, and robust.
Robust = pelvis, btw.
Venus was never a narrow-hipped vixen.
The body acceptance people should really focus on the hips.
A low WHR, it is thought, must correlate with fertility (ability to have children) and/or fecundity (tendency to have large numbers of children).”
There is such a thing as too low. Boyish figures have less fat, fewer curves and narrower hips.
They’re confusing women who have obesity and babies for State money with natural attractiveness, fecundity in the state of nature and blurring BMI with WHR. Nobody said unhealthy (low) WHR is wealthy, for fecundity. That’s a strawman. The hormones and other details, medical details, are better profiled in the most nubile WHR range. It is a range. Don’t line graph me, study.
It doesn’t mention race although many women in the world do not have a figure. Unless you count a figure of 1.
Hormones and junk: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/health-what-a-man-cant-resist-the-perfect-waist-hip-ratio-forget-about-breasts-says-jerome-burne-its-1440859.html
“The waist is one of the distinguishing human features, such as speech, making tools and a sense of humour,’ says Professor Singh. ‘No other primate has one. We developed it as a result of another unique feature – standing upright. We needed bigger buttock muscles for walking on two legs.”
If the waist makes the human, a lot of women are fucked.
“The ideal ratio in healthy pre- menopausal women ranges between 0.67 and 0.8. In terms of the tape measure, this is produced by waists between 24in and 28in with 36in hips, and waists between 27in and 31in with 40in hips.”
…How many Asian women have a 36″ hip?
The fat ones I’ve seen were pufferfish.
“come puberty, the sex hormones start directing it differently.”
“Oestrogen, the hormone of female sexual characteristics, concentrates it on the buttocks and hips while the masculinising hormone testosterone encourages fat to form around the waist.’ At the same time testosterone encourages fat to be burnt off the buttocks while oestrogen takes it off the abdomen.
These characteristically feminine fat stores are used in the last months of pregnancy and during breast-feeding. This is another reason why women who are seriously underweight often stop menstruating – they would not have the resources to support a pregnancy or a baby.”
“Women with a low ratio, Professor Singh says, tend to start ovulating younger, and those with a high ratio find it more difficult to become pregnant and tend to have children later. [not by choice]
Although a high waist-hip ratio most commonly goes with being overweight, it can also be found in women of normal weight who have high testosterone levels – a condition that is also associated with being hairy, infertile and having a ‘male’ body shape.”
Manly body, fertility problems. Study it. Avert tragedy.
“In a survey of 106 men aged 18 to 22, the favourite was a female of average weight with the classic hour-glass figure. Not only were such women rated as young, sexy and healthy, they were also seen as ideal for childbearing.”
Again, sexy is different from beautiful.
Porn is a lie.
“The young men regarded the underweight women – defined as women of 5ft 5in weighing less than 90lb – as ‘youthful’ but not particularly attractive, especially for childbearing.”
To prefer the obese over the mannish figured for motherhood is huge.
Youthful is code for making them feel like a pedophile.
“In Professor Singh’s other surveys, men of all ages agreed with these findings – thus bearing out her theory of the waist-hip ratio.”
Women dropped the corset to signal they weren’t just baby-making machines.
It’s hard to test low-WHR women in a world of obesity.
“Women who were extremely underweight or overweight were not included.”
Study them separately?
Porn is making you drawn to infertile women, with boy hips. Conditioning.
“Figures of average weight and a WHR of 0.7 were rated as most attractive and healthy.”
It is important.
I want to see a study that looks at racial WHR against pregnancy issues.
Is that so hard to ask?
“These data indicate that BF% appears to be a strong cue for attractiveness and that the impact of WHR and BMI on attractiveness is dependent, in part, on BF%. The appearance of body fat may provide disruption in the visual cues of both shape and size of the female body, potentially impacting behavior.”
Speciation is determined by biological compatibility in sum. This includes many factors. On none I have seen do Asian-White hybrids succeed over their parental groups’ averages; even IQ gains, if true, would be worse for the individual’s own fertility rate.
The only other thing I could think of is a study on STD rates between couples.
“The association between travel and STDs has been known for centuries”
What’s the Asian version of burn the coal? Pick the chopstick, get ripped?
Prevalance: “fairly common.”
The wages of sin. You can’t blame the white man.
Syphilis present in Asian archaeological samples.
‘referred to as “the intraracial network effect,”’
Oh, that’s why they don’t study it.
“suggest that assortative mixing prevents the spread of STI to other subpopulations.”
“A number of studies in the literature, many of which did not measure biomedical markers of STI, suggest that mixing across subpopulations may contribute to spread of STI in the population, particularly across subpopulations.”
If you increase the microbe’s exposure to different parts of the human genome, it will evolve faster. Simple?
Age groups can be a larger factor, since the older immune system is weak and better for the microbe.
“In a recent study conducted in Seattle we found that most of the disease burden for gonococcal and chlamydial infections in both high prevalence and low prevalence subpopulations was attributable to mixing within the subpopulations”
I think we’ve found the reason white women mix out the least. Same reason we don’t like to eat meat raw – to avoid disease.
‘the proportion of infection attributable to indirect mixing, or so called “bridge populations,”
So it is attributable and naturally must inform sexual behaviour.
“While we found that sexual mixing between particular racial ethnic subpopulations increased the risk of STI significantly, the proportion of the population engaging in sexual mixing, and the numbers of sex partners reported by individuals engaging in sexual mixing across racial-ethnic subpopulations were too low for this increased risk to play a major part in disease burden.”
Hybrid vigour, guys!
The risk isn’t the major part, it’s fine! Water’s fine!
“The literature on racial-ethnic differentials in STI rates and the role of racial ethnic mixing on the spread of STI is emergent; many questions still remain unanswered.”
If miscegenation were unhealthy, we’d know, right?