Global inbreeding

[roadrunner]

Funny how all the inbreed countries are Muslim countrys, I think this guy wanted to show that we muslims are in this mess becuase our peopel are retarded inbred, thats way we have so much wars and poverty, was that your intetion roadrunner?
If inbred means marrieng your cousin than it can be correct, in Islam its allowed to marry a cousin, in Christian relligion not, that's way Europe and US have less inbred, country like Japan and China in old times was common to marry a cousin but becuase they copied the lifestile of Westerners they don't do that much anymore.

But I got to say marrieng a cousin is a bad idea, In Afghanisatn they show almost on every program that it is not good to do that.
And most peopel who married in the family there children are not really bright or healthy, I am really glad that my father and mother are starnagers to each other.

i dont know what you mean by my intention. i gave a map and asked if it was accurate. I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't think it's accurate personally for the muslim countries. elsewhere it might be accurate.

[roadrunner]

What are you talking about. Marrying first cousins has nothing to do with religion, it is more cultural than anything else. Judaism, christianity and Islam allows first cousin marriages.
First cousin marriages are common in the Indian subcontinent, keeping wealth in the family and trust is stronger in the family.

But the whole thing about offsprings of first cousin marriages as having genetic defects is a myth. Studies have shown that genetic defects in first cousin marriages are not that much higher than the general population.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us...ted=all&src=pm

Famous people in the west that married first cousins:
1)Albert Einstein (parents were also first cousins) he was a math and physics whiz but he couldnt comb his hair. inbeeding caused him to become a retarded groomer.
2)Thomas Jefferson
3)Benjamin Franklin
4)Edgar Allen Poe
5)Charles Darwin
6)Franklin Roosevelt
7)Rudy Giuliani

20% of all marriages in the world are first cousins and 80% of all marriages historically have been between first cousins. People are as ignorant today as back then.
If Roady is a retard, its not because of his first cousin parents, its just simply because the stupid gene in him beat the sh*t out of the intellectual gene in him. The Stupid gene is dominent in him.

Resistance is right, the most diverse region in the world with the most diverse genetic markers is the place where the three races(Caucasian, Negroid, Mongloid) meet.

it depends. if your inbreeding line is extremely healthy you may be alright. in many cases it's not. when you have the retard gene such as those within bradford, england, or other sister towns and cities, inbreeding multiplies up the genetic disease over many generations.

[roadrunner]

Everybody who walks on this planet is descending from some level of inbreeding.

Simply put if we follow this model and we go back 5 generations, we are descended from 32 great-great-great grandparents. Double that - 10 generations - and we would be related to 1024 great ancestors:

SELF
2 PARENTS
4 GRANDPARENTS
8 GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
16 GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
32 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
64 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
128 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
256 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENT
512 GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
(keep on doubling the figure to go back another generation)

Twenty generations back (about 450 years) we are related to 1,048,576 great ancestors. Five generations before, our existence depends on 33,554,432 people - another five generations before (30 generations back) and we are now counting in figures over a billion. Continue this trend and go back to the time of the Romans and the time-line by which the Gregorian Calendar is fixed (2000 years), then we have a total number of one million trillion people in our immediate ancestry.

According to those who study paleodemographics there is something wrong here ... because that last figure is more than the said number of people who have ever lived.

The pyramid model means that two uniquely unrelated people came together to parent the next generation. However, a different model may show that two parents of one of our ancestors might not have been so distantly related and therefore there may be overlap. An individual may have cousin-parents and thus six great-grandparents rather than eight. Before the time of mass travel when people lived in small villages, individual genes came often from a tight pool and where cousin parents would not have been unusual.

it is true we are variably inbred.

[khushal]

it depends. if your inbreeding line is extremely healthy you may be alright. in many cases it's not. when you have the retard gene such as those within bradford, england, or other sister towns and cities, inbreeding multiplies up the genetic disease over many generations.

Its always hard talking to you, you never make any sense. if two healthy people have a child, wheather they are first cousins or 100th cousins, the child will most likely be healthy and if two unhealthy people have a child wheather they are first cousins or 100th cousins, the childs chance of being healthy is decreased. Some genes are passed from the parent and it is noticeble in the child and other genes skip a generation and are noticable in the grandchildren.

The campaign to end first cousin marriages in the west predates genetic studies. Most of history's ruling people were offsprings of first cousins and that includes the royalties in europe as well as the middle east and south asia and the far east.

[roadrunner]

Its always hard talking to you, you never make any sense. if two healthy people have a child, wheather they are first cousins or 100th cousins, the child will most likely be healthy and if two unhealthy people have a child wheather they are first cousins or 100th cousins, the childs chance of being healthy is decreased. Some genes are passed from the parent and it is noticeble in the child and other genes skip a generation and are noticable in the grandchildren.

The campaign to end first marriages in the west predates genetic studies. Most of history's ruling people were offsprings of first cousins and that includes the royalties in europe as well as the middle east and south asia and the far east.

if two healthy distant people have children the offspring will likely be healthy. if two healthy closely related people have children they have an increased chance of recessive diseases showing up.

if two unhealthy closely related people have children they have a much higher chance of being retarded to quite an extent.

[khushal]

if two healthy distant people have children the offspring will likely be healthy. if two healthy closely related people have children they have an increased chance of recessive diseases showing up.

if two unhealthy closely related people have children they have a much higher chance of being retarded to quite an extent.

The chance is almost the same as two unhealthy distant people. What your saying is all myth. If that were the case than the whole world should be retarded since historically most marriages all over the world were between cousins. This thing about cousins marrying in the west as taboo is a recent developement. Historically the vast majority married cousins.

[roadrunner]

The chance is almost the same as two unhealthy distant people.

If they are distant, they won't share the same recessive diseases, so the offspring will be healthy.

if they're as close as first cousins, they will have more chance of sharing the same recessives. greater chance of unhealthy offspring.

What your saying is all myth. If that were the case than the whole world should be retarded since historically most marriages all over the world were between cousins. This thing about cousins marrying in the west as taboo is a recent developement. Historically the vast majority married cousins.

historically most marriages weren't between cousins, prove that with a link.

historically inbreeding was more popular but who's to say that the populations were not as healthy as they are now?

[roadrunner]

two healthy cousins, even first cousins wouldn't be too bad. but most cousin marriages are between two people that are already boundary retards. that is unhealthy for sure.

[khushal]

If they are distant, they won't share the same recessive diseases, so the offspring will be healthy.

Roady,
Dont blame your retardness on your parents being first cousins, maybe they had you when they were old because the chance of genetic defects of first cousin marriage is the same as couples in their late thirties having kids.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ousinmarriage/
That argument, raised Monday in an editorial in Public Library of Science Biology, may turn the stomachs of people raised to disapprove of any form of incest. But dispassioned analysis suggests that cousin marriage is no more troubling than childbearing by middle-aged women.
"Women over the age of 40 are not prevented from childbearing, nor is anyone suggesting they should be, despite an equivalent risk of birth defects," write zoologists Hamish Spencer and Diane Paul. Bans against cousin marriage, they say, should be repealed, "because neither the scientific nor social assumptions that informed them are any longer defensible."

if they're as close as first cousins, they will have more chance of sharing the same recessives. greater chance of unhealthy offspring.

distant couples also have a chance of sharing the same recessive gene. Thats why you have children with genetic defects from parents that are as distant as thousands of generations.

historically most marriages weren't between cousins, prove that with a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage
According to Professor Robin Fox of Rutgers University, it is likely that 80% of all marriages in history have been between second cousins or closer

historically inbreeding was more popular but who's to say that the populations were not as healthy as they are now?

well we have retarded people like you, thats how we know.
Here is a book about the myth that your promoting debunked:
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books...252065408.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=JMp...page&q&f=false


Oh, by the way if you want to decrease retardedness in the world, I would suggest you not to breed.

[roadrunner]

distant couples also have a chance of sharing the same recessive gene. Thats why you have children with genetic defects from parents that are as distant as thousands of generations.

^ are you completely thick?

Distant couples do not have the SAME chance as closely related couples of sharing the same recessive gene. Cousins have a much greater chance of sharing the same recessive.

Has it finally penetrated the thick skull?

I'll move onto the rest when you've managed to understand this.

[KhalsaWarrior]

jatts in pakistan and jatts in india are culturally very similar.

most sikh jatts migrated from pakistan at partition. the same culture continues.

Thats total cr@p. Just like the usual stuff you peddle. Being a Jatt Sikh myself I can tell you that we abhor cousin marriages. As Bharati said, its not practiced here. In fact where Bharati comes from people are killed just because they happened to marry within the same gotra as their paternal grandmothers. Google Khap Panchayats and you'll know. Most Hindu Jatts practice strict exogamy and one cant marry in the same gotra/surname as your own as well as the maternal surnames of your Mom and both grandmoms. So that 4 surnames you cant marry into.

In fact its the Muslim families in North India that I have seen following endogamy.

And south India is diverse. Its very hard to judge and make a generalization.

[roadrunner]

Jatt Sikhs are a small community. They marry within that small community and have done it for hundreds of years. It's very likely inbred.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Jatt Sikhs are a small community. They marry within that small community and have done it for hundreds of years. It's very likely inbred.

So how are you defining inbred here? By your logic Pashtuns would be inbred too. I think a community of the strength of more than 20 million like Jatt Sikhs, the chances of being inbred are definitely reduced. Especially if that community practices strict exogamy. And as someone else pointed out, if you go back far enough almost everybody is inbred.

[JattApache]

Jatt Sikhs are a small community. They marry within that small community and have done it for hundreds of years. It's very likely inbred.

You don't understand the fact that we don't marry our direct cousins

Are you a retard ? Is it hard to understand ?

[roadrunner]

So how are you defining inbred here? By your logic Pashtuns would be inbred too. I think a community of the strength of more than 20 million like Jatt Sikhs, the chances of being inbred are definitely reduced. Especially if that community practices strict exogamy. And as someone else pointed out, if you go back far enough almost everybody is inbred.

I'm not sure that's too true.

total sikh population is 30 million. 75% might be in Punjab. So 22000000. Around half are Jatts.

So about 11 million. It's not a lot over centuries.

Pashtuns would be around 40 million perhaps. It's not a huge amount but possibly enough.