Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below heavy_duty
New member
you fill in the blank
Most White Chicks are...
- Thread starter heavy_duty
- Start date
J
jenscats5
Guest
So white they are clear....
redsamurai
Banned
snobs?
heavy_duty
New member
have flabby asses...
LOL damn now this thread will get locked hahahahaaaaa
LOL damn now this thread will get locked hahahahaaaaa
heavy_duty said:
i'm not going to lock it, but you realize how stupid this is?
how could "most" white women be anything? are we talking about the white women of palm springs, or the bayou?
are 'most' black men something in particular?
most white women are white. everything else is generalizing and as dumb as calling black men lazy or polish people stupid.
Longhorn85
New member
stilleto said:
Well hung
fistfullofsteel
Well-known member
crappy in bed.
rsnoble-im-back
Banned
Heres another one for you: If it looks good and tastes good then ______ it.
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01
Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.
The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.
Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.
In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.
"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."
The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.
The work also reveals for the first time that Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, in each case affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races.
Several sociologists and others said they feared that such revelations might wrongly overshadow the prevailing finding of genetics over the past 10 years: that the number of DNA differences between races is tiny compared with the range of genetic diversity found within any single racial group.
Even study leader Keith Cheng said he was at first uncomfortable talking about the new work, fearing that the finding of such a clear genetic difference between people of African and European ancestries might reawaken discredited assertions of other purported inborn differences between races -- the most long-standing and inflammatory of those being intelligence.
"I think human beings are extremely insecure and look to visual cues of sameness to feel better, and people will do bad things to people who look different," Cheng said.
The discovery, described in today's issue of the journal Science, was an unexpected outgrowth of studies Cheng and his colleagues were conducting on inch-long zebra fish, which are popular research tools for geneticists and developmental biologists. Having identified a gene that, when mutated, interferes with its ability to make its characteristic black stripes, the team scanned human DNA databases to see if a similar gene resides in people.
To their surprise, they found virtually identical pigment-building genes in humans, chickens, dogs, cows and many others species, an indication of its biological value.
They got a bigger surprise when they looked in a new database comparing the genomes of four of the world's major racial groups. That showed that whites with northern and western European ancestry have a mutated version of the gene.
Skin color is a reflection of the amount and distribution of the pigment melanin, which in humans protects against damaging ultraviolet rays but in other species is also used for camouflage or other purposes. The mutation that deprives zebra fish of their stripes blocks the creation of a protein whose job is to move charged atoms across cell membranes, an obscure process that is crucial to the accumulation of melanin inside cells.
Humans of European descent, Cheng's team found, bear a slightly different mutation that hobbles the same protein with similar effect. The defect does not affect melanin deposition in other parts of the body, including the hair and eyes, whose tints are under the control of other genes.
A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest.
Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago.
Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.
Sun intensity is great enough in equatorial regions that the vitamin can still be made in dark-skinned people despite the ultraviolet shielding effects of melanin. In the north, where sunlight is less intense and cold weather demands that more clothing be worn, melanin's ultraviolet shielding became a liability, the thinking goes.
Today that solar requirement is largely irrelevant because many foods are supplemented with vitamin D.
Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.
Cheng and co-worker Victor A. Canfield said their discovery could have practical spinoffs. A gene so crucial to the buildup of melanin in the skin might be a good target for new drugs against melanoma, for example, a cancer of melanin cells in which slc24a5 works overtime.
But they and others agreed that, for better or worse, the finding's most immediate impact may be an escalating debate about the meaning of race.
Recent revelations that all people are more than 99.9 percent genetically identical has proved that race has almost no biological validity. Yet geneticists' claims that race is a phony construct have not rung true to many nonscientists -- and understandably so, said Vivian Ota Wang of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda.
"You may tell people that race isn't real and doesn't matter, but they can't catch a cab," Ota Wang said. "So unless we take that into account it makes us sound crazy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abdulhakeem16-12-05, 05:46 PM
Gene That Determines Skin Color Is Discovered, Scientists Report
By NICHOLAS WADE (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=NICHOLAS WADE&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=NICHOLAS WADE&inline=nyt-per)
Published: December 16, 2005
A gene that is responsible for the pale skin of Europeans and the dark skin of Africans has been discovered by scientists at Pennsylvania State University.
The gene comes in two versions, one of which is found in 99 percent of Europeans and the other in 93 to 100 percent of Africans, the researchers report in today's issue of Science.
The gene is unusual because with most human genes, different versions are generally shared, though one version may be more common in one race than another. One exception is the Duffy null allele, a version of a gene that prevents malaria, that is found almost exclusively in one race, sub-Saharan Africans.
The new gene falls into the same category as the Duffy gene, and it may shed light on the evolutionary pressures to which Europeans were subjected as their ancestors, who were presumably dark skinned, moved into the northern latitudes some 40,000 years ago.
Humans acquired dark skins in Africa about 1.5 million years ago to shield their newly hairless bodies from the sun. Its ultra-violet rays destroy folic acid, a shortage of which leads to birth defects.
But when the modern humans who left Africa began to live in northern latitudes, they needed more sunlight to penetrate the skin, to permit the chemical reaction that produces vitamin D.
The new gene was first identified not in humans but in a mutant zebra fish, a small striped fish common in aquariums. The mutant fish are known as golden, because their stripes, usually black, are much paler and their bodies more yellow.
Dr. Keith C. Cheng, an author of the report, and his colleagues showed that the golden version of the fish gene altered production of melanosomes, the tiny black particles of pigments that give skin its color.
The researchers then found that in humans, who have their own form of the gene, the version common in Africans allowed larger melanosomes, which tend to clump together, whereas the version in Europeans produced smaller and more dispersed melanosomes.
Asians have the same version of the gene as Africans, so they presumably acquired their light skin through the action of some other gene that affects skin color, said Dr. Cheng.
Mark D. Shriver, another author of the article, said his laboratory was trying to assess when the European version of the gene became so common, as well its geographical origin.
The intense selective pressure that drove the version to become universal in Europeans may have included sexual selection.
"In Africa people are much darker than they need to be for UV protection, so to me that screams sexual selection," Dr. Shriver said. Black skin, in other words, may have been favored by men and women in sexual partners, just as pale skin may have been preferred in sexual partners among Europeans and Asians.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01
Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.
The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.
Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.
In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.
"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."
The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.
The work also reveals for the first time that Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, in each case affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races.
Several sociologists and others said they feared that such revelations might wrongly overshadow the prevailing finding of genetics over the past 10 years: that the number of DNA differences between races is tiny compared with the range of genetic diversity found within any single racial group.
Even study leader Keith Cheng said he was at first uncomfortable talking about the new work, fearing that the finding of such a clear genetic difference between people of African and European ancestries might reawaken discredited assertions of other purported inborn differences between races -- the most long-standing and inflammatory of those being intelligence.
"I think human beings are extremely insecure and look to visual cues of sameness to feel better, and people will do bad things to people who look different," Cheng said.
The discovery, described in today's issue of the journal Science, was an unexpected outgrowth of studies Cheng and his colleagues were conducting on inch-long zebra fish, which are popular research tools for geneticists and developmental biologists. Having identified a gene that, when mutated, interferes with its ability to make its characteristic black stripes, the team scanned human DNA databases to see if a similar gene resides in people.
To their surprise, they found virtually identical pigment-building genes in humans, chickens, dogs, cows and many others species, an indication of its biological value.
They got a bigger surprise when they looked in a new database comparing the genomes of four of the world's major racial groups. That showed that whites with northern and western European ancestry have a mutated version of the gene.
Skin color is a reflection of the amount and distribution of the pigment melanin, which in humans protects against damaging ultraviolet rays but in other species is also used for camouflage or other purposes. The mutation that deprives zebra fish of their stripes blocks the creation of a protein whose job is to move charged atoms across cell membranes, an obscure process that is crucial to the accumulation of melanin inside cells.
Humans of European descent, Cheng's team found, bear a slightly different mutation that hobbles the same protein with similar effect. The defect does not affect melanin deposition in other parts of the body, including the hair and eyes, whose tints are under the control of other genes.
A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest.
Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago.
Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.
Sun intensity is great enough in equatorial regions that the vitamin can still be made in dark-skinned people despite the ultraviolet shielding effects of melanin. In the north, where sunlight is less intense and cold weather demands that more clothing be worn, melanin's ultraviolet shielding became a liability, the thinking goes.
Today that solar requirement is largely irrelevant because many foods are supplemented with vitamin D.
Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.
Cheng and co-worker Victor A. Canfield said their discovery could have practical spinoffs. A gene so crucial to the buildup of melanin in the skin might be a good target for new drugs against melanoma, for example, a cancer of melanin cells in which slc24a5 works overtime.
But they and others agreed that, for better or worse, the finding's most immediate impact may be an escalating debate about the meaning of race.
Recent revelations that all people are more than 99.9 percent genetically identical has proved that race has almost no biological validity. Yet geneticists' claims that race is a phony construct have not rung true to many nonscientists -- and understandably so, said Vivian Ota Wang of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda.
"You may tell people that race isn't real and doesn't matter, but they can't catch a cab," Ota Wang said. "So unless we take that into account it makes us sound crazy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abdulhakeem16-12-05, 05:46 PM
Gene That Determines Skin Color Is Discovered, Scientists Report
By NICHOLAS WADE (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=NICHOLAS WADE&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=NICHOLAS WADE&inline=nyt-per)
Published: December 16, 2005
A gene that is responsible for the pale skin of Europeans and the dark skin of Africans has been discovered by scientists at Pennsylvania State University.
The gene comes in two versions, one of which is found in 99 percent of Europeans and the other in 93 to 100 percent of Africans, the researchers report in today's issue of Science.
The gene is unusual because with most human genes, different versions are generally shared, though one version may be more common in one race than another. One exception is the Duffy null allele, a version of a gene that prevents malaria, that is found almost exclusively in one race, sub-Saharan Africans.
The new gene falls into the same category as the Duffy gene, and it may shed light on the evolutionary pressures to which Europeans were subjected as their ancestors, who were presumably dark skinned, moved into the northern latitudes some 40,000 years ago.
Humans acquired dark skins in Africa about 1.5 million years ago to shield their newly hairless bodies from the sun. Its ultra-violet rays destroy folic acid, a shortage of which leads to birth defects.
But when the modern humans who left Africa began to live in northern latitudes, they needed more sunlight to penetrate the skin, to permit the chemical reaction that produces vitamin D.
The new gene was first identified not in humans but in a mutant zebra fish, a small striped fish common in aquariums. The mutant fish are known as golden, because their stripes, usually black, are much paler and their bodies more yellow.
Dr. Keith C. Cheng, an author of the report, and his colleagues showed that the golden version of the fish gene altered production of melanosomes, the tiny black particles of pigments that give skin its color.
The researchers then found that in humans, who have their own form of the gene, the version common in Africans allowed larger melanosomes, which tend to clump together, whereas the version in Europeans produced smaller and more dispersed melanosomes.
Asians have the same version of the gene as Africans, so they presumably acquired their light skin through the action of some other gene that affects skin color, said Dr. Cheng.
Mark D. Shriver, another author of the article, said his laboratory was trying to assess when the European version of the gene became so common, as well its geographical origin.
The intense selective pressure that drove the version to become universal in Europeans may have included sexual selection.
"In Africa people are much darker than they need to be for UV protection, so to me that screams sexual selection," Dr. Shriver said. Black skin, in other words, may have been favored by men and women in sexual partners, just as pale skin may have been preferred in sexual partners among Europeans and Asians.
beefcake28
New member
fistfullofsteel said:
Holy shit... Ain't that the truth?? Seriously. Worthless... Not that I would know, or anything...
J
jenscats5
Guest
gjohnson5 said:
Zing!
beefcake28
New member
gjohnson5 said:
What she "tells you" doesn't matter. It is what she does to you that does matter...
jimi3times
New member
Cant we all just get along?
jimi3times
New member
Most white chicks are after me and my third leg of my tripod!
heavy_duty
New member
This aint the first "stupid" thread on EF 
stilleto said:
heavy_duty
New member
Damn
can you expand on this, I have only had white, am I missing out??
can you expand on this, I have only had white, am I missing out??
fistfullofsteel said:
Basic_wonder
New member
slutty
fistfullofsteel
Well-known member
heavy_duty said:Damn
can you expand on this, I have only had white, am I missing out??
sure, from my experience and from what i hear, black chicks, mixed chicks and latino girls know how to fuck. meaning they know how to suck dick, ride your dick, say the right things and sound sexy at the right time, generally really get into it unlike white chicks that basically make it like a log. basically they are better at every part of fucking including kissing.
heavy_duty
New member
hmmmm, time for some research.
fistfullofsteel said:
Similar threads
