Global inbreeding

[roadrunner]

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

Are you a retard ? Is it hard to understand ?

look inbreed, it's not only consinguinous marriages that determine inbreeding, there's other factors and population size is one of them.

[KhalsaWarrior]

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.

That 30 mn number sounds right. So estimates suggest about 60% are Jatts so that brings us to about 20 mn again. And you are discounting Jatts outside India. Most of the Sikhs abroad are Jatts as they were the first to head west.

And the Jatt Sikh identity was formed about 300 years ago only. Before that most were either Hindus or Muslims which was a bigger set of people, probably bigger than Pashtuns. But I dont see your point here. Do we have a benchmark for a number in millions that could say for sure that a community has to be of this min benchmark to be free of inbreeding? If you are comparing with modern day Pashtuns, I would say Pashtuns would be more in bred since they practice cousin-marriages. Jatt Sikhs, along with their Jatt Hindus dont. In fact, if Muslim Jatts in Pakistan practice cousin marriages then its probably because they are influenced by other Muslim communities around them.

So apart from numbers alone, practices and traditions have to be taken into account as well.

[JattApache]

Cousin marriage was a practice followed by Arabs before Islam so it was allowed in Islam.

So the muslim jatts in pakistan practice cousin marriages.

[roadrunner]

That 30 mn number sounds right. So estimates suggest about 60% are Jatts so that brings us to about 20 mn again. And you are discounting Jatts outside India. Most of the Sikhs abroad are Jatts as they were the first to head west.

And the Jatt Sikh identity was formed about 300 years ago only. Before that most were either Hindus or Muslims which was a bigger set of people, probably bigger than Pashtuns. But I dont see your point here. Do we have a benchmark for a number in millions that could say for sure that a community has to be of this min benchmark to be free of inbreeding? If you are comparing with modern day Pashtuns, I would say Pashtuns would be more in bred since they practice cousin-marriages. Jatt Sikhs, along with their Jatt Hindus dont. In fact, if Muslim Jatts in Pakistan practice cousin marriages then its probably because they are influenced by other Muslim communities around them.

So apart from numbers alone, practices and traditions have to be taken into account as well.

Consinguinous marriages are not a Muslim tradition or practice you little racist. They are permissible only.

In general, Muslim regulations on marriage parallel the Judaic pattern detailed in Leviticus 18: 7-18. However, uncle-niece unions are permitted in Judaism. Yet they are forbidden by the Koran, even though double first cousin marriages, which have the same coefficient of inbreeding (F = 0.125), are recognized within Islam. In southern Asia, Buddhism sanctions marriage between first cousins, as does the Zoroastrian/Parsi tradition.
The Sikh religion forbids consanguineous marriage, although some minority Sikh groups appear to exercise flexibility in the observance of this proscription.

According to the above Sikhs do marry cousins. It is not strictly forbidden among Sikhs at all.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Consinguinous marriages are not a Muslim tradition or practice you little racist. They are permissible only.

In general, Muslim regulations on marriage parallel the Judaic pattern detailed in Leviticus 18: 7-18. However, uncle-niece unions are permitted in Judaism. Yet they are forbidden by the Koran, even though double first cousin marriages, which have the same coefficient of inbreeding (F = 0.125), are recognized within Islam. In southern Asia, Buddhism sanctions marriage between first cousins, as does the Zoroastrian/Parsi tradition.
The Sikh religion forbids consanguineous marriage, although some minority Sikh groups appear to exercise flexibility in the observance of this proscription.

According to the above Sikhs do marry cousins. It is not strictly forbidden among Sikhs at all.

I havent seen one ever. But perhaps your sources can be right and I having lived all my life in their midst could be wrong.

[Wahe Guru]

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.

It seems that Pashtuns have had a population explosion in the last 100 years or so. Thats just going by some population figures I saw for Pashtuns.

Also remember that Pashtuns do marry 1st cousins and other family relatives since they are allowed to do so being Muslims. Jat Sikhs and Hindu Jats avoid marrying close family relatives - which is done by checking the gotras (family surnames). Therefore, overall, Pashtuns have had a greater chance of inbreeding over time.

As stated by other people, most populations are ultimately inbred (we can conclude that because smaller numbers are now much larger numbers) because we know historically they mostly married within their own groups and also married people mostly not too far from where they lived.

As roadrunner said - chances of diseases is greater with inbreeding. Marrying 1st cousins carries the greatest risk and marrying other relatives also creates a risk. Thats why in north India - it was forbidden to marry close relatives. Only people who converted to Islam they started marrying cousins.

[Wahe Guru]

^ 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.

Though you often tend to write a lot of NONSENSE, I do agree with what you have written above and there is plenty of evidence to support that.

[Wahe Guru]

are you inbred, wahe, because you cannot read (or write).

I meant Sikh Jatts were living in Pakistan and migrated to India at partition. Most Sikh Jatts are from the pakistani area of punjab

And I have told you above is not true. Most Sikh Jats are originally from the Indian Punjab area as most Jats (but not all) in Pakistan Punjab area had converted to Islam by about 1500. Also those Jats migrating in 1947 from Pakistan to India, majority of them were just Jats returning back to their original villages from lands they had been alloted by British after WW1 in west Punjab. However there were still quite a few in number original Sikh Jatts (who were originally from Pakistan Punjab area) and they nearly all migrated to Indian Punjab in 1947.

[roadrunner]

I havent seen one ever. But perhaps your sources can be right and I having lived all my life in their midst could be wrong.

you can't know every single sikh marriage and community. it most likely occurs but many are too scared to admit it in case you chop their head off with a kirpan or something.

[roadrunner]

i looked up that 0.1% statistic for Hindu marriages in Delhi. It was of course hilarious. it's taken from an obstetrics clinic in Delhi. given that it is illegal it's unlikely the patient is going to say that they married their first cousin. that would make 0.1% of very stupid people in Delhi that are hindu in this case.

[roadrunner]

there is a better goswani reference for central india, madya pradesh which is nearly 10% cousin marriages for Hindus.

[roadrunner]

Jat Sikhs and Hindu Jats avoid marrying close family relatives - which is done by checking the gotras (family surnames).

You honestly believe people don't lie or change names in India?

[Wahe Guru]

You honestly believe people don't lie or change names in India?

Do all Muslims pray 5 times a day?

I have a solution to prevent inbreeding - Let us all commit suicide. You first.

[khushal]

As roadrunner said - chances of diseases is greater with inbreeding. Marrying 1st cousins carries the greatest risk and marrying other relatives also creates a risk. Thats why in north India - it was forbidden to marry close relatives. Only people who converted to Islam they started marrying cousins.

What are you talking about, your saying that sikhs forbid it because thier founder was some genetic professor. The practice was made illegal in 1955. Its a recent developement.

The risk is the same as people having kids in their late thirties. Do you guys actually read studies or do you just blabber away talking from your arse.

[khushal]

^ 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.

Its almost the same chance it is only increased by about 2%, the same as people having kids in their late thirties.

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

You cant move on to the rest because you have been debunked. Your a retard.