$1,300+ monthly payment????!!!!!!

[PandaBear]

I had a black female college professor yell at the class…… “No matter how white the color of your skin is, you have Black Blood in your genes from your ancestors. “

I’m like OK…..
Others in class had a very good laugh.

I took this class for an easy A and raise my GPA.

Technically she is "right" assuming that "Black Blood" means DNA closest to the modern-day African American, and "how white the color of your skin" means your current DNA.

Based on the common practice of using DNA deviation to determine where a certain species originally came from, the one closest to the origin has the most diverse gene pool and the least diverse one has been drifted away and breed internally among the migrants instead of with the more diverse original gene pool. This is used to determine whether a bird, a cat, a canine, etc were originally from one place or another and which way they migrated.

If you use the same way to look at human gene pool, that black female college professor is not wrong entirely. She may not be accurate but she was not wrong.

 

[JeffKeryk]

The more you know the more you know you don't know...

 

[PandaBear]

Here are the starter courses I mentioned. All the buzzwords are there. Inequality, inclusion, climate change, the citizenship is apparently not defined by the country you were born in.
The human extinction is quite fascinating. Planting the seeds of fear comes to my mind first.

View attachment 146274View attachment 146275View attachment 146276

I don't see anything wrong with this course. They say what they will cover in the course and you are supposed to do reading, writing essays about them, hold debates, etc.

Just because you are in a class doesn't mean you have to agree to everything it teaches you, and you are certainly welcome to write how you disagree with the reading material with your own counterarguments, and in fact, it is very much encouraged. On the other hand if you only write how much you agree with the reading material and didn't cite any source, provide any arguments for the opposite opinion, etc, your essay will likely get a D or F and you will eventually fail the class.

So, I don't see what is your problem. At college age you are a grown-up adult with a brain, you should be able to think, regardless of what people tell you.

 

[brianl703]

If you use the same way to look at human gene pool, that black female college professor is not wrong entirely. She may not be accurate but she was not wrong.

She was wrong in that the more distant your ancestors, the less likely you are to actually have any DNA that could be matched to them.

 

[MNgopher]

Read page 1, the skipped to the last page. Obviously this thread went way off on a tangent... Think I will pass on the remainder.

 

[PandaBear]

She was wrong in that the more distant your ancestors, the less likely you are to actually have any DNA that could be matched to them.

She was not wrong.

This is how random mutation works, we have seen that in the lab on bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. It is a common way to determine how far a chicken was from its T-Rex ancestor (yes chicken derives from dinosaur).

Go to a hospital and see how their overuse of antibiotic leads to resistant bacterial infection and kill patients (fact).
Go to a swimming pool expert and ask how not using "shock" treatment of chlorine leads to the development of chlorine-resistant bacterial growth (fact).

Do you have any scientific paper reviewed by reputable scientists on the contrary?

 

[4WD]

Last seen 15-March but left the building well before that…

 

[KrisZ]

I don't see anything wrong with this course. They say what they will cover in the course and you are supposed to do reading, writing essays about them, hold debates, etc.

Just because you are in a class doesn't mean you have to agree to everything it teaches you, and you are certainly welcome to write how you disagree with the reading material with your own counterarguments, and in fact, it is very much encouraged. On the other hand if you only write how much you agree with the reading material and didn't cite any source, provide any arguments for the opposite opinion, etc, your essay will likely get a D or F and you will eventually fail the class.

So, I don't see what is your problem.

It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with the course, my point is that higher education is clearly biased to the left. I would be saying the same if they were clearly biased to the right.

They should be as near the center as possible and they are not IMO. Others see it as not a big deal.
I’m not offended by it, despite what you might’ve inferred from my posts. But it does seem to touch a nerve with some of the posters here.

 

[PWMDMD]

I don't see anything wrong with this course. They say what they will cover in the course and you are supposed to do reading, writing essays about them, hold debates, etc.

Just because you are in a class doesn't mean you have to agree to everything it teaches you, and you are certainly welcome to write how you disagree with the reading material with your own counterarguments, and in fact, it is very much encouraged. On the other hand if you only write how much you agree with the reading material and didn't cite any source, provide any arguments for the opposite opinion, etc, your essay will likely get a D or F and you will eventually fail the class.

So, I don't see what is your problem. At college age you are a grown-up adult with a brain, you should be able to think, regardless of what people tell you.

Exactly. I had profs who shared their ideas and opinions and rationale and I thought they were out of their minds. Furthermore, I was able to express my different opinion with support and I still got my A. I never felt pressured by a prof to change my opinion and I never felt like I had to assume their position - 99% of my profs explicitly stated they did not want us to accept what they said without question and they wanted us based on lectures, readings, projects, and life history to formulate our own opinions.

 

[brianl703]

She was not wrong.

This is how random mutation works, we have seen that in the lab on bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. It is a common way to determine how far a chicken was from its T-Rex ancestor (yes chicken derives from dinosaur).

Go to a hospital and see how their overuse of antibiotic leads to resistant bacterial infection and kill patients (fact).
Go to a swimming pool expert and ask how not using "shock" treatment of chlorine leads to the development of chlorine-resistant bacterial growth (fact).

Do you have any scientific paper reviewed by reputable scientists on the contrary?

The further distant your ancestors, the less DNA you have from them, and the less likely it is that DNA could prove that you descended from them. This is well known among genealogists.

 

[PWMDMD]

She was wrong in that the more distant your ancestors, the less likely you are to actually have any DNA that could be matched to them.

Huh? The more time that goes by the more novel and unique mutations/alleles will be found in a species' genome and the less like it will be to ancestor genomes.

 

[PWMDMD]

The further distant your ancestors, the less DNA you have from them, and the less likely it is that DNA could prove that you descended from them. This is well known among genealogists.

You wrote, "...the more distant your ancestors, the less likely you are to actually have any DNA that could be matched to them." and then you wrote, "The further distant your ancestors, the less DNA you have from them."

Those statements are equivalent.

 

[brianl703]

Huh? The more time that goes by the more novel and unique mutations/alleles will be found in a species' genome and the less like it will be to ancestor genomes.

According to Ancestry, "At seven generations back, less than 1% of your DNA is likely to have come from any given ancestor."

I've read, can't recall where, that past 10 generations, it's extremely unlikely that any of your DNA will have come from an ancestor that far back.

 

[brianl703]

You wrote, "...the more distant your ancestors, the less likely you are to actually have any DNA that could be matched to them." and then you wrote, "The further distant your ancestors, the less DNA you have from them."

Those statements are equivalent.

They sure are, aren't they?

 

[brianl703]

She was not wrong.

Outside of mtdna, which is passed mostly unchanged from mother to child, she's wrong. Unless you want to also make the claim that we have the genes of the single-celled organisms we descended from, which makes about as much sense.

 

[billt460]

Definitions change and the one you have is a step towards full out communism. If a government can step in and take your property for a “greater good” without fair compensation, it is not under any social program. It’s full tyranny and I’m pretty sure US constitution protects us from such overreach. I’m sure it happens though.

The Constitution is supposed to protect our right to free speech. But that is quickly going out the window as well.

 

[PWMDMD]

Outside of mtdna, which is passed mostly unchanged from mother to child, she's wrong. Unless you want to also make the claim that we have the genes of the single-celled organisms we descended from, which makes about as much sense.

Why does that not make sense? We evolved from single-cell eukaryotic organisms and while maybe not an exact copy at this point there surely is evidence that our current version of some genees are derived from the single-cell ancestor's version with a similar structure and function.

 

[PWMDMD]

Definitions change and the one you have is a step towards full out communism. If a government can step in and take your property for a “greater good” without fair compensation, it is not under any social program. It’s full tyranny and I’m pretty sure US constitution protects us from such overreach. I’m sure it happens though.

Who took your property without fair compensation? It's never happened to me....

 

[PWMDMD]

The Constitution is supposed to protect our right to free speech. But that is quickly going out the window as well.

When has your right to free speech been prohibited by the government? It's never happened to me...

BTW...the Constitution does not say and has never said you have an absolute right to free speech. It says the GOVERNMENT can't infringe on your right to free speech. As an example, in my place of business, you have no protected right to free speech and I have no legal obligation to allow you to stay and say whatever you want.

 

[billt460]

Still more collegiate insanity.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/michi...aduation-celebrations-based-on-race-sexuality