What's up with Pakistanis and Marrying their 1st Cousins?

[dr_sinister1001]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1180146.stm (not the report I saw today but something similar)

I was watching the BBC and I caught a report about officials in Birmingham advising the Pakistani population of the dangers of in breeding. Apparently it's a tradition to marry 1st cousins and other close relatives. Why is that a tradition? Marrying close relatives can result in a high frequency of either infanticide or if the child survives other recessive genetic diseases.

Is anyone here married to a close relative? Or practices that tradition within their family?

It is highly ill advised.

:idea:

[Indian_Eyess]

I saw that report. But its only prominent if its after years and generations of in-breeding and if anyone does that is a complete idiot. i personally think its unhealthy, but hey, watever floats ur boat.

[The Anti Desi]

Thats hardly a case in America.....even among rednecks/hillbillies.

And I don't know the truth about West Virginia.....someone fill me in.....

[sweetest_sin]

:ugh: ewww

[RacingSoul]

they do that????

:wtf:

[bellefemme]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1180146.stm (not the report I saw today but something similar)

I was watching the BBC and I caught a report about officials in Birmingham advising the Pakistani population of the dangers of in breeding. Apparently it's a tradition to marry 1st cousins and other close relatives. Why is that a tradition? Marrying close relatives can result in a high frequency of either infanticide or if the child survives other recessive genetic diseases.

Is anyone here married to a close relative? Or practices that tradition within their family?

It is highly ill advised.

:idea:

oviously they want to be "surrounderd by their own ppl", but I dont think pakistani's arent the only one, other desi's do that too, I know many bangali's who have done that. But I think its gross, b/c the person u have called "bahiya" all this time suddenly becomes ur "Sieyya" (hubby or lover). And u start to act romantic. eeww

[The Anti Desi]

oviously they want to popluate the city,with their own ppl, but I dont think pakistani's arent the only one, other desi's do that too, I know many bangali's who have done that. But I think its gross, b/c the person u have called "bahiya" all this time suddenly becomes ur "Sieyya" (hubby or lover). And u start to act romantic. eeww
Populate for what????

Nationality has its limits.

[bellefemme]

Populate for what????

Nationality has its limits.

I edited it

[The Anti Desi]

I edited it
Thats a nonsense reason on their part.

[bellefemme]

Thats a nonsense reason on their part.

yea I know, but u know sometimes how ppl have relatives who are a lil poor, or the guys cant do anything over there, and have uncles and cousins living abroad, they usually get them married here, so they can come and make money.

[The Anti Desi]

yea I know, but u know sometimes how ppl have relatives who are a lil poor, or the guys cant do anything over there, and have uncles and cousins living abroad, they usually get them married here, so they can come and make money.
No....I don't know....but I understand that happening, but not between cousins.

[bellefemme]

No....I don't know....but I understand that happening, but not between cousins.
well it happens between cousins too. My parents wanted my brother get married to one of my 1st cousin, b/c she's preety and very nice girl. but we bro and I) rejected it, b/c of the 1st statement I have made above. Now his happily married to someone outside of the family.

[dandiwal_jatt]

i thought cousin marriage is prevelant in some* muslims but like in this report why are they only targeting pakis like what about arabs etc. is it just b/c pakis are a lot more in UK than arabs or iranis etc?

[bad_cheque]

Ever the contrarion I am going to post this.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041001.html


Dear Cecil:

What is the deal with cousins marrying each other? In most states it's against the law. Yet where I am working, in a West African francophone country, there is a saying, "Cousins are made for cousins." Is this practice really genetically unsound, or is that just an American old wives' tale? --Jay Davidson, Peace Corps volunteer, Mauritania

Cecil replies:

Among the many things Americans just know, without ever having thought about it, is that if first cousins marry, their children will be drooling half-wits. The handful who wonder if there's any logic to this belief probably think: Royal inbreeding. Prince Charles. Case closed.

As recent events have shown, however, a lot of things we Yanks just know aren't so. The supposed evils of cousin marriage may not be the first one that comes to mind, but it's definitely on the list. In his impressive dissection of the issue, Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage (1996), anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer points out the following little-known facts--little-known, that is, here in the U.S.:

* The U.S. is virtually alone among developed nations in outlawing marriage among first cousins. European countries have no such prohibition. In some cultures, particularly Islamic ones, first-cousin marriage is encouraged. Even in the U.S. laws forbidding the practice are far from universal. First-cousin marriage is currently illegal or restricted in 31 states. (Some states allow it if there's no chance of procreation--interesting in light of conservative opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that the institution's function is to produce children.) It's legal in the rest--and no, Kentucky and West Virginia aren't among the permissive ones. Try California and New York.

* First-cousin marriage isn't a surefire recipe for congenital defects. True, marriage among close kin can increase the chance of pathological recessive genes meeting up in some unlucky individual, with dire consequences. The problem isn't cousin marriage per se, however, but rather how many such genes are floating around in the family pool. If the pool's pretty clean, the likelihood of genetic defects resulting from cousin marriage is low. A recent review (Bennett et al, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2002) says that, on average, offspring of first-cousin unions have a 2 to 3 percent greater risk of birth defects than the general population, and a little over 4 percent greater risk of early death. While those margins aren't trivial, genetic testing and counseling can minimize the danger. An argument can be made that marriages of first cousins descended from strong stock can produce exceptional children. Charles Darwin, for example, married his first cousin Emma, which wasn't at all unusual in their prominent and successful family--their common grandparents were cousins too. Three of Charles and Emma's ten kids died in childhood, it's true, but that was standard for Victorian England; the others went on to productive and in some cases distinguished careers.

* All kidding aside, the formerly high incidence of congenital defects, specifically hemophilia, among European royal families isn't the classic demonstration of the perils of inbreeding that everybody thinks it is. The short explanation is that hemophilia is an X-chromosome-related characteristic, transmitted only through the female line. The children of royal female carriers would have been at risk no matter whom their mothers had married.

Why are Americans and their legal system so phobic about first-cousin marriage while Europeans aren't? Ottenheimer blames several factors. First, bad research in the 19th century greatly exaggerated the dangers of imbecility, blindness, etc, among children of close kin. This research was eventually discredited in Europe, but Americans and their state legislators never got the word. Second, cousin marriage in the U.S. was considered a sign of barbarism (probable translation: hillbillies did it). In Europe, on the other hand, particularly in Mediterranean cultures, cousin marriage had a long and reasonably respectable history, although it's rare today. Finally, European deep thinkers contended that certain forms of cousin marriage increased social cohesion. No such positive arguments were advanced in the States.

Let me emphasize we're talking strictly about cousin marriage here. The incest taboo regarding parent-child and sibling unions is still strong in Europe and most other places. Setting aside the issue of exploitation where minor children are concerned, such unions have a much higher risk of "adverse medical outcome"--7 to 31 percent, according to Bennett et al.

As for cousin marriage--admit it, you admire me for keeping the word "kissin'" out of this discussion--Ottenheimer thinks U.S. laws against it ought to be repealed. I'm not seeing it: Jerry Lee Lewis got a buttload of flak for marrying his first cousin once removed in 1957, and the uproar over gay marriage suggests that rewriting the rules about whom one may properly wed is likely to be a tough sell now. Still, the issue reminds us of the importance of asking, when confronted with some instance of conventional wisdom: Says who?

--CECIL ADAMS

[bad_cheque]

Now I am going to post some info about this that I read a long time ago.

Cousin marriages were quite common in Europe. So how did European culture change so much that now cousin marriages are frowned upon and even ridiculed? Well, this started with the advent of Christianity. As said in the above post cousin marriages tend to increase social cohesion. People stick closer to their family and tribe and it is not easy to gain control over them. So in order to break this unity cousin marriages were made taboo. Thus people become less tribal and more individualistic as the look outside for mates, seek help from outside organisations rather than ones own family to find mates and finally break the client-protector relationship of the family/tribe. Yes, it was a form of social re-engineering to gain power over the people.

[khichica]

I have a friend who's Jewish, her parents are first cousins.

[LiLtOoCrAzYyY]

i wouldn't do it, cuz our familyz r super close...but if sum1 wants to do it...i dont c the big deal...

i mean its been happening for ages...

n i kno ALOT of ppl that have married their cousins n their kids r totallly normal, n i kno ppl that have married outside hte family n their kids r disabled...it's watever god's willed for u n ur kids...

[imdaman99]

im not opposed to it, but personally i think i deserve better than a cousin of mine :dunno: maybe like a hot 3rd cousin or somethin :kekeke:

[Rishi_TEX]

thats just fukin disgusting...disgusting ppl

[chakdephute]

if you want your children to have club feet and arms growing out of their heads, by all means, marry your first cousins.

[zimmy24]

i heard south indians do it too.

[shadey]

:sarb: :sarb: its not a big deal peplzz do get together with their first or second cuzinss , its old fashioned but its koOl .

[bad_cheque]

i heard south indians do it too.
Yeah, it used to happen. I didn't want to be the one to break it to drsinister ;)

[Ketamine-Abuse]

I was under the impression this was an urban myth created by indians after the pakistanis said they had flat heads

[gujju^chokro]

now I see the logic behind all those bhai-jaans j/k's :eek:

[Z4K5T4R]

i wouldn't do it, cuz our familyz r super close...but if sum1 wants to do it...i dont c the big deal...

i mean its been happening for ages...

n i kno ALOT of ppl that have married their cousins n their kids r totallly normal, n i kno ppl that have married outside hte family n their kids r disabled...it's watever god's willed for u n ur kids...
Lol couldn't have said it better sweets. Same here people in family that got married to cousins are normal and i've seen people that married outside the family with kids that are disabled.

It's stupid that they pinpoint the Pakistani community - what about White people that have disabled children?

[HeppyG]

Its interesting to note that some people think its OK to marry their 1st cousins-you guys need your head banging against a brick wall its not normal!

[cyber_satan]

i just had a narrow escape my parents want me 2 get .. engaged in the family badly for i dont know wot reason .. but i made a story up... im to cleva for them wooho :Pelvic2:

[Z4K5T4R]

Its interesting to note that some people think its OK to marry their 1st cousins-you guys need your head banging against a brick wall its not normal!
Oh my god stop whinging over it. It's normal has always happened. Not something that's started to happen out the blue. and Perfectly normal. You can produce a disabled child even out blood relation.

[illin]

disabled kids or not its still just plain wrong to me.
family should just be off limits period.

[The Anti Desi]

Ever the contrarion I am going to post this.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041001.html


Dear Cecil:

What is the deal with cousins marrying each other? In most states it's against the law. Yet where I am working, in a West African francophone country, there is a saying, "Cousins are made for cousins." Is this practice really genetically unsound, or is that just an American old wives' tale? --Jay Davidson, Peace Corps volunteer, Mauritania

Cecil replies:

Among the many things Americans just know, without ever having thought about it, is that if first cousins marry, their children will be drooling half-wits. The handful who wonder if there's any logic to this belief probably think: Royal inbreeding. Prince Charles. Case closed.

As recent events have shown, however, a lot of things we Yanks just know aren't so. The supposed evils of cousin marriage may not be the first one that comes to mind, but it's definitely on the list. In his impressive dissection of the issue, Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage (1996), anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer points out the following little-known facts--little-known, that is, here in the U.S.:

* The U.S. is virtually alone among developed nations in outlawing marriage among first cousins. European countries have no such prohibition. In some cultures, particularly Islamic ones, first-cousin marriage is encouraged. Even in the U.S. laws forbidding the practice are far from universal. First-cousin marriage is currently illegal or restricted in 31 states. (Some states allow it if there's no chance of procreation--interesting in light of conservative opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that the institution's function is to produce children.) It's legal in the rest--and no, Kentucky and West Virginia aren't among the permissive ones. Try California and New York.

* First-cousin marriage isn't a surefire recipe for congenital defects. True, marriage among close kin can increase the chance of pathological recessive genes meeting up in some unlucky individual, with dire consequences. The problem isn't cousin marriage per se, however, but rather how many such genes are floating around in the family pool. If the pool's pretty clean, the likelihood of genetic defects resulting from cousin marriage is low. A recent review (Bennett et al, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2002) says that, on average, offspring of first-cousin unions have a 2 to 3 percent greater risk of birth defects than the general population, and a little over 4 percent greater risk of early death. While those margins aren't trivial, genetic testing and counseling can minimize the danger. An argument can be made that marriages of first cousins descended from strong stock can produce exceptional children. Charles Darwin, for example, married his first cousin Emma, which wasn't at all unusual in their prominent and successful family--their common grandparents were cousins too. Three of Charles and Emma's ten kids died in childhood, it's true, but that was standard for Victorian England; the others went on to productive and in some cases distinguished careers.

* All kidding aside, the formerly high incidence of congenital defects, specifically hemophilia, among European royal families isn't the classic demonstration of the perils of inbreeding that everybody thinks it is. The short explanation is that hemophilia is an X-chromosome-related characteristic, transmitted only through the female line. The children of royal female carriers would have been at risk no matter whom their mothers had married.

Why are Americans and their legal system so phobic about first-cousin marriage while Europeans aren't? Ottenheimer blames several factors. First, bad research in the 19th century greatly exaggerated the dangers of imbecility, blindness, etc, among children of close kin. This research was eventually discredited in Europe, but Americans and their state legislators never got the word. Second, cousin marriage in the U.S. was considered a sign of barbarism (probable translation: hillbillies did it). In Europe, on the other hand, particularly in Mediterranean cultures, cousin marriage had a long and reasonably respectable history, although it's rare today. Finally, European deep thinkers contended that certain forms of cousin marriage increased social cohesion. No such positive arguments were advanced in the States.

Let me emphasize we're talking strictly about cousin marriage here. The incest taboo regarding parent-child and sibling unions is still strong in Europe and most other places. Setting aside the issue of exploitation where minor children are concerned, such unions have a much higher risk of "adverse medical outcome"--7 to 31 percent, according to Bennett et al.

As for cousin marriage--admit it, you admire me for keeping the word "kissin'" out of this discussion--Ottenheimer thinks U.S. laws against it ought to be repealed. I'm not seeing it: Jerry Lee Lewis got a buttload of flak for marrying his first cousin once removed in 1957, and the uproar over gay marriage suggests that rewriting the rules about whom one may properly wed is likely to be a tough sell now. Still, the issue reminds us of the importance of asking, when confronted with some instance of conventional wisdom: Says who?

--CECIL ADAMS
Islam does not restrict it, but it does not encourage it either, despite the actions of many "Muslim cultures."

Also this notion of keepin power in the family went as far back as the ancient Egyptian empires, though they would go as far as sister marriages.

[The Anti Desi]

i thought cousin marriage is prevelant in some* muslims but like in this report why are they only targeting pakis like what about arabs etc. is it just b/c pakis are a lot more in UK than arabs or iranis etc?
It seems like the main health hazards have come from this community than other communities....thats why this community is focus.

[hurryputher]

Its interesting to note that some people think its OK to marry their 1st cousins-you guys need your head banging against a brick wall its not normal!

It's called a difference in culture you retard. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean its necessarily wrong.

[Mash007]

its funny that people have this major problem with Pakis doing it and always pick up on it

even though the Aristocracies have been inbreeding in Europe for centuries

[Street_Scholar]

I think this article maybe flawed. The Pakistani community is much more fertile in Bhrimigham then the other community could it be they are just having more babies? maybe this would explain high-rate of babe deaths within the Pakistani community?

[gangsta_bitch]

if ithe two are happy then whats the prob??

i know it sounds disgusting to ppl who aint paki but its normal for them and they dont see anything wrong wiv it...

and yeh i agree wiv da girlz up der ^^ sayin dat what abt da white ppl n deir disabled kidz??

[HeppyG]

It's called a difference in culture you retard. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean its necessarily wrong.

Retard 2how ga

[gangsta_bitch]

Retard teri maa!

now now kidz...

[hurryputher]

....

[Z4K5T4R]

if ithe two are happy then whats the prob??

i know it sounds disgusting to ppl who aint paki but its normal for them and they dont see anything wrong wiv it...

and yeh i agree wiv da girlz up der ^^ sayin dat what abt da white ppl n deir disabled kidz??
It's pathetic they pinpoint the Pakistani community for doing it. Saw it in the
news and they made it out to be real bad. :neutral: It's like what the hell it happens in most religions.

[HeppyG]

It's pathetic they pinpoint the Pakistani community for doing it. Saw it in the
news and they made it out to be real bad. :neutral: It's like what the hell it happens in most religions.


Fair point but its not just pakistani people who do this its in many cultures-I know some Sikh people who have married in their families becaues of wealth my point is you should marry for the right reasons! Neways I believe in live and let live-if no 1 is doing ne harm then its all good!

Peace

[gangsta_bitch]

It's pathetic they pinpoint the Pakistani community for doing it. Saw it in the
news and they made it out to be real bad. :neutral: It's like what the hell it happens in most religions.

i know.. they jus makin a big issue outa nuffin...

i mean personally i wudnt marry any of my cousins cuz my parents dont agree about it but sum ppl do and its family tradition for them... so why r ppl in the media criticisin it?? i jus dont get it... SAD PPL GOT NUFFIN ELSE 2CHAT ABOUT!! :mad:

[paulie walnuts]

It's pathetic they pinpoint the Pakistani community for doing it. Saw it in the
news and they made it out to be real bad. :neutral: It's like what the hell it happens in most religions.
random occurrences are different from pattern behavior.

[Razor Ramon]

To those who find it disgusting:

You are the offspring of cousin-to-cousin marriage and even brother-sister relations.

Earth started with 2 people and for population to grow, there had to be instances of brothers andf sisters sleeping together.

[paulie walnuts]

To those who find it disgusting:

You are the offspring of cousin-to-cousin marriage and even brother-sister relations.

Earth started with 2 people and for population to grow, there had to be instances of brothers andf sisters sleeping together.
translation:

"my parents are first-cousins"

[Razor Ramon]

translation:

"my parents are first-cousins"


Nope.

[Indian_Eyess]

Well, most inbreeding diseases come from generation after generation of inbreeding, if a cousin marries another cousin once in a while in the family, I dont see harm in it, but whoever does it generation after generation is the biggest idiot I know. Clearly they're making it sound like its widespread, a few incidents DO NOT necessarily mean that the entire community is gonna look at their cousin and send em a wink. So chill motha fuckas :neutral:

[DingDong111]

its not just pakistanis...since its allowed in islam, muslims do it cuz they dont wana go far searching for decent respectable grls and just find grls in the immediate family.....

[dr_sinister1001]

I don't understand this tradition, or why it's allowed in the culture. If there are recessive genetic diseases running in the family and two cousins marry 1 in four of their children will have that typically unexpressed genetic disease. That's a pretty big chance of having a retarded baby, why would anyone want to take that risk?

Culture or no culture that tradition is stupid... and should be frowned upon.

:idea:

[Indian_Eyess]

I don't understand this tradition, or why it's allowed in the culture. If there are recessive genetic diseases running in the family and two cousins marry 1 in four of their children will have that typically unexpressed genetic disease. That's a pretty big chance of having a retarded baby, why would anyone want to take that risk?

Culture or no culture that tradition is stupid... and should be frowned upon.

:idea:
I agree to a certain extent

[Notorious_Stud]

Actually the thing is, people just point out the paki culture because apparantly "we are related to terrorist acts or whatever"

but marrying into your family doesent produce disabled kids at all unless there is a genetic disease already in the family which can cause abnormality.

Fact: my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, grandparents brothers and sisters, i mean the whole blooody Family or "khandan" is married into their cousins, and there is ABSOLOULTY NO DISABLED person in the family, not even one, and hasnt been one for the past generations! so lets just get your facts right, before people pin point the paki people out for being dumb and marrying into there family! and oh another thing, its not disgusting, if it was your own brother or sister then it is, but 1st, 2nd, 3 cousins are your parents borthers/sisters children so it really isnt as bad as you all make it, its been in eastern and western culture, so i dont see why paki people should be criticized for!

didnt mean to sound harsh or anything, just saying what i felt, so dont take it persoanlly

tc
:wavey:

[vyxen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1180146.stm (not the report I saw today but something similar)

I was watching the BBC and I caught a report about officials in Birmingham advising the Pakistani population of the dangers of in breeding. Apparently it's a tradition to marry 1st cousins and other close relatives. Why is that a tradition? Marrying close relatives can result in a high frequency of either infanticide or if the child survives other recessive genetic diseases.

Is anyone here married to a close relative? Or practices that tradition within their family?

It is highly ill advised.

:idea:

its better than molesting ur daughter... no??? :p

[Indian_Eyess]

Actually the thing is, people just point out the paki culture because apparantly "we are related to terrorist acts or whatever"

but marrying into your family doesent produce disabled kids at all unless there is a genetic disease already in the family which can cause abnormality.

Fact: my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, grandparents brothers and sisters, i mean the whole blooody Family or "khandan" is married into their cousins, and there is ABSOLOULTY NO DISABLED person in the family, not even one, and hasnt been one for the past generations! so lets just get your facts right, before people pin point the paki people out for being dumb and marrying into there family! and oh another thing, its not disgusting, if it was your own brother or sister then it is, but 1st, 2nd, 3 cousins are your parents borthers/sisters children so it really isnt as bad as you all make it, its been in eastern and western culture, so i dont see why paki people should be criticized for!

didnt mean to sound harsh or anything, just saying what i felt, so dont take it persoanlly

tc
:wavey:
after a certain time it happens, happened to the royal families of europe. Its ill advised to marry within the family for more than one generation or 2

[dr_sinister1001]

Actually the thing is, people just point out the paki culture because apparantly "we are related to terrorist acts or whatever"

but marrying into your family doesent produce disabled kids at all unless there is a genetic disease already in the family which can cause abnormality.

Fact: my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, grandparents brothers and sisters, i mean the whole blooody Family or "khandan" is married into their cousins, and there is ABSOLOULTY NO DISABLED person in the family, not even one, and hasnt been one for the past generations! so lets just get your facts right, before people pin point the paki people out for being dumb and marrying into there family! and oh another thing, its not disgusting, if it was your own brother or sister then it is, but 1st, 2nd, 3 cousins are your parents borthers/sisters children so it really isnt as bad as you all make it, its been in eastern and western culture, so i dont see why paki people should be criticized for!

didnt mean to sound harsh or anything, just saying what i felt, so dont take it persoanlly

tc
:wavey:

1stly, I am not taking a shot at the Pakistanis, I understand the concept of cultural relativism, cousin marriage is a normal practice in a lot of other cultures as well.

But I'm just pointing out the health risks and there is a high degree of hereditary genetic diseases that seem to run in the Pakistani population. These diseases are normally recessive so they don't get expressed, but when 2 people with the same recessive gene have a child i.e. 1st cousins, their children have a good chance of inheriting an expressed form of that disease. It’s almost like nature’s way of inducing genetic diversity, a biological mechanism to promote introduction of new genes into the gene pool.

In a world where we know so much about genetics and how to take preventative measures, it makes no sense to stick to old traditions that WE KNOW have negative impacts. Bringing a disabled baby into the world is obviously unwise, these children are dependent on others for their entire life and the quality of their lives will be limited due to their disability.

Marrying outside of the family just increases the chance drastically of having healthy children.

:idea:

[Notorious_Stud]

1stly, I am not taking a shot at the Pakistanis, I understand the concept of cultural relativism, cousin marriage is a normal practice in a lot of other cultures as well.

But I'm just pointing out the health risks and there is a high degree of hereditary genetic diseases that seem to run in the Pakistani population. These diseases are normally recessive so they don't get expressed, but when 2 people with the same recessive gene have a child i.e. 1st cousins, their children have a good chance of inheriting an expressed form of that disease. It’s almost like nature’s way of inducing genetic diversity, a biological mechanism to promote introduction of new genes into the gene pool.

In a world where we know so much about genetics and how to take preventative measures, it makes no sense to stick to old traditions that WE KNOW have negative impacts. Bringing a disabled baby into the world is obviously unwise, these children are dependent on others for their entire life and the quality of their lives will be limited due to their disability.

Marrying outside of the family just increases the chance drastically of having healthy children.

:idea:

put it this way, there hasnt been a disabled person in my family before, and inshallah god will prevent it! but really if you both like each other, then you should gett married to them. As for diseases and everything, like you said gentics and science has came a long way, there are tests available to prevent a disabled child! from being born with faulty genes!

so if thats all taken care off, whats hte problem, right?

[dr_sinister1001]

put it this way, there hasnt been a disabled person in my family before, and inshallah god will prevent it! but really if you both like each other, then you should gett married to them. As for diseases and everything, like you said gentics and science has came a long way, there are tests available to prevent a disabled child! from being born with faulty genes!

so if thats all taken care off, whats hte problem, right?

Well they can't prevent the child from inheriting the disease. Gene therapy is still in its infancy.

They can only predict the probability through a genetic pedigree. And if the parents have children they have to take the risk, which is unwise.

:idea:

[Princezz1982]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1180146.stm (not the report I saw today but something similar)

I was watching the BBC and I caught a report about officials in Birmingham advising the Pakistani population of the dangers of in breeding. Apparently it's a tradition to marry 1st cousins and other close relatives. Why is that a tradition? Marrying close relatives can result in a high frequency of either infanticide or if the child survives other recessive genetic diseases.

Is anyone here married to a close relative? Or practices that tradition within their family?

It is highly ill advised.

:idea:

Selfish.

[Princezz1982]

thats just fukin disgusting...disgusting ppl



Agree.

[P4ki4Lyf]

Actually the thing is, people just point out the paki culture because apparantly "we are related to terrorist acts or whatever"

but marrying into your family doesent produce disabled kids at all unless there is a genetic disease already in the family which can cause abnormality.

Fact: my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, grandparents brothers and sisters, i mean the whole blooody Family or "khandan" is married into their cousins, and there is ABSOLOULTY NO DISABLED person in the family, not even one, and hasnt been one for the past generations! so lets just get your facts right, before people pin point the paki people out for being dumb and marrying into there family! and oh another thing, its not disgusting, if it was your own brother or sister then it is, but 1st, 2nd, 3 cousins are your parents borthers/sisters children so it really isnt as bad as you all make it, its been in eastern and western culture, so i dont see why paki people should be criticized for!

didnt mean to sound harsh or anything, just saying what i felt, so dont take it persoanlly

tc
:wavey:

yep i agree wiv him. but i think its kinda ew if u call ur cousins bro/sis n then end up marryin them, otherwise its not that bad. i personally wudnt do it coz i cal all my male cousins 'bro'.

[MolviCorleone]

in islam you cannot marry your own sibling, aunt, uncle, parent.

but if you look into it, hindus actually do that.


i cant be asked looking for the info but i know its true becuase ive been told this by a hindu.

even though some hindus look down on it, plenty merry thier own cousin.

[paulie walnuts]

in islam you cannot marry your own sibling, aunt, uncle, parent.

but if you look into it, hindus actually do that.


i cant be asked looking for the info but i know its true becuase ive been told this by a hindu.

even though some hindus look down on it, plenty merry thier own cousin.
lol, yeah maybe tiny tribal communities in the villages marry cousins...needless to say, it is an extreme rarity. the only other situations where this would happen is certain castes who don't want to spoil their lineage. but again, it would be so rare that i can't even think of such a caste's name.

my mom was telling me about some family friends whose daughter eloped with her first cousin....that family is so ashamed they don't even show their faces at community functions anymore and practically disowned the girl. And that's just a cousin marriage - a marriage to a sibling is absolutely unheard of.

hindus definitely do not marry within the family.

[xsilent_watersx]

Its interesting to note that some people think its OK to marry their 1st cousins-you guys need your head banging against a brick wall its not normal!
my words exactly..

[MrHarmfulOne]

Your first cousin is almost as genetically different from you as a total stranger.

[dr_sinister1001]

Your first cousin is almost as genetically different from you as a total stranger.

No.

:idea:

[ssshawtyyy08]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1180146.stm (not the report I saw today but something similar)

I was watching the BBC and I caught a report about officials in Birmingham advising the Pakistani population of the dangers of in breeding. Apparently it's a tradition to marry 1st cousins and other close relatives. Why is that a tradition? Marrying close relatives can result in a high frequency of either infanticide or if the child survives other recessive genetic diseases.

Is anyone here married to a close relative? Or practices that tradition within their family?

It is highly ill advised.

:idea:


likin ur sig :D

[MrHarmfulOne]

No.

:idea:

Are you positive about this? I think I heard from a few biology professors.

[MolviCorleone]

lol, yeah maybe tiny tribal communities in the villages marry cousins...needless to say, it is an extreme rarity. the only other situations where this would happen is certain castes who don't want to spoil their lineage. but again, it would be so rare that i can't even think of such a caste's name.

my mom was telling me about some family friends whose daughter eloped with her first cousin....that family is so ashamed they don't even show their faces at community functions anymore and practically disowned the girl. And that's just a cousin marriage - a marriage to a sibling is absolutely unheard of.

hindus definitely do not marry within the family.


erm ive through a friend that in india, theres been cases of a brother marrying his sister and vice versa, even a guy married his grandmother

now thats sick


marrying a cousin though, although i wouldnt do it simply bevuase i could never look at my cosuins that way, i would consider marrying a "relative" if i didnt know her (ie from a diff town)

but yeh think about it, marrying a 1st cousin, its not really incest, marrying your own sister though, thats incest, so i think its annoying when these hindu lads come on in this forum and accuse the pakistan guys of committing incest.

when its actually the hindus who do it.

marrying to animals aswell ive heard of that too.




only in india my friend, only in india

:no:

[bad_cheque]

Again, why do some muslims have to diss hindus to defend themselves?

I am a hindu and I was the first person to put out a contrarian view. Before that everyone were aghast and saying it was old, doesn't exist etc.

Be proud of what you are. Don't diss others to prove yourself and don't lower your heads because others think different from you.

If someone made fun of Hindu practices, I would just say 'yeah this is the way we are. I don't care what you think. Case closed.' Thats it. Try it sometime. It is more effective and puts out a powerful statement.

[bad_cheque]

Your first cousin is almost as genetically different from you as a total stranger.
Yes its true in a certain way.

[CashMoneyHoes]

erm ive through a friend that in india, theres been cases of a brother marrying his sister and vice versa, even a guy married his grandmother

now thats sick


marrying a cousin though, although i wouldnt do it simply bevuase i could never look at my cosuins that way, i would consider marrying a "relative" if i didnt know her (ie from a diff town)

but yeh think about it, marrying a 1st cousin, its not really incest, marrying your own sister though, thats incest, so i think its annoying when these hindu lads come on in this forum and accuse the pakistan guys of committing incest.

when its actually the hindus who do it.

marrying to animals aswell ive heard of that too.




only in india my friend, only in india

:no:

Stop trying to take this post away from hindus, they do it very rarely if they do that... We are talking about the paki's doing it and man we have pakis on these forums admitting to it, that is freaking disgusting!

[The Anti Desi]

It's pathetic they pinpoint the Pakistani community for doing it. Saw it in the
news and they made it out to be real bad. :neutral: It's like what the hell it happens in most religions.
The article did not pinpoint simply on the fact on cousin marriage. The main cause of concern was the poor health conditions, and then this was the result of research. It no way indicates prejudice towards the Pakistani community.

[dr_sinister1001]

Are you positive about this? I think I heard from a few biology professors.

Trust me on this, your 1st cousins can share very similar genetics with you. And if there is a genetic disease that runs in your family there's a good chance that your 1st cousins have inherited that same faulty gene from your COMMON grandparent. Also remember that... one of your parents and one of your cousin’s parents shares pretty much the same genetics. So the only genetic separation comes from your parent that is not blood related to your cousin. There is a possibility that your 1st Cousin can share 13% of the genes you have.

You get 50% of your genes from your parent, who has 50% of his or her genes from your common grandparent. That means you share 25% of your genes with your Uncle or Aunt and half that with your 1st cousin. So the genetic relation is big.

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

Yes its true in a certain way.

It isn't... Don't spread misinformation.

:idea:

[The Anti Desi]

Actually the thing is, people just point out the paki culture because apparantly "we are related to terrorist acts or whatever"

but marrying into your family doesent produce disabled kids at all unless there is a genetic disease already in the family which can cause abnormality.

Fact: my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, grandparents brothers and sisters, i mean the whole blooody Family or "khandan" is married into their cousins, and there is ABSOLOULTY NO DISABLED person in the family, not even one, and hasnt been one for the past generations! so lets just get your facts right, before people pin point the paki people out for being dumb and marrying into there family! and oh another thing, its not disgusting, if it was your own brother or sister then it is, but 1st, 2nd, 3 cousins are your parents borthers/sisters children so it really isnt as bad as you all make it, its been in eastern and western culture, so i dont see why paki people should be criticized for!

didnt mean to sound harsh or anything, just saying what i felt, so dont take it persoanlly

tc
:wavey:
This article spoke no malevolence towards the Pakistani community. It had nothing to do with terrorism or any similar subject. Nor did it have any eastern/western conflict of culture issue. It was simply research from a health assessment.

[Z4K5T4R]

Again, why do some muslims have to diss hindus to defend themselves?

I am a hindu and I was the first person to put out a contrarian view. Before that everyone were aghast and saying it was old, doesn't exist etc.

Be proud of what you are. Don't diss others to prove yourself and don't lower your heads because others think different from you.

If someone made fun of Hindu practices, I would just say 'yeah this is the way we are. I don't care what you think. Case closed.' Thats it. Try it sometime. It is more effective and puts out a powerful statement.
So you're saying when we muslims say Hindus do it too you consider it as a diss? Man on this site Islamis put down all the time by non-muslims but it's a rare case seeing Hindus being dissed for it. :no: maybe you should read things carefully

We're proud of what we do fact is why does it bother other people so much and why the case of pinpointing one community when it is a case that is done world widely.

[paulie walnuts]

erm ive through a friend that in india, theres been cases of a brother marrying his sister and vice versa, even a guy married his grandmother

now thats sick


marrying a cousin though, although i wouldnt do it simply bevuase i could never look at my cosuins that way, i would consider marrying a "relative" if i didnt know her (ie from a diff town)

but yeh think about it, marrying a 1st cousin, its not really incest, marrying your own sister though, thats incest, so i think its annoying when these hindu lads come on in this forum and accuse the pakistan guys of committing incest.

when its actually the hindus who do it.

marrying to animals aswell ive heard of that too.




only in india my friend, only in india

:no:
the guy "marrying" his grandma made national headlines in India. that should tell you how common it is. he thought he would be afforded special legal and custodial rights as a spouse. needless to say, he was a moron and the marriage was declared illegal.

nobody marries animals. there was one highly publicized case of a tribal girl "marrying" a dog. this was done because those villagers believed the girl had to get married immediately in order to ward off an evil spell, and because they couldn't afford dowry, they figured a dog would work. the girl will still get married to a boy when she's older as she normally would've.

if you had any semblance of a legitimate argument, i wouldn't be debating this with you. but the fact is that hindus strongly disapprove of incestuous marriages, wheter between siblings or cousins...both are equally rejected. it's just something that hindus do not do.

it's not just hindus....even Sikhs will refuse to marry someone of their own last name, let alone a cousin. you will never find a Dhillon marrying a Dhillon.

[Z4K5T4R]

The article did not pinpoint simply on the fact on cousin marriage. The main cause of concern was the poor health conditions, and then this was the result of research. It no way indicates prejudice towards the Pakistani community.
You assume too much go and watch the news. The BBC news in UK pinpointed the Pakistani community in Birmingham check your facts. It's bad enough Terrorism always pinpoints the Pakistani community when the 7/7 was committed by different ethnic minorities but yet made sure Pakistanis stood out more and even in this case they are doing the same thing.

[The Anti Desi]

put it this way, there hasnt been a disabled person in my family before, and inshallah god will prevent it! but really if you both like each other, then you should gett married to them. As for diseases and everything, like you said gentics and science has came a long way, there are tests available to prevent a disabled child! from being born with faulty genes!

so if thats all taken care off, whats hte problem, right?
True....but it is still taking unnecessary risk.

[bad_cheque]

So you're saying when we muslims say Hindus do it too you consider it as a diss? Man on this site Islamis put down all the time by non-muslims but it's a rare case seeing Hindus being dissed for it. :no: maybe you should read things carefully

We're proud of what we do fact is why does it bother other people so much and why the case of pinpointing one community when it is a case that is done world widely.
This wasa thread about Pakistanis. Stick to it. You want to deride hindus, start a new thread and go berserk.

[The Anti Desi]

You assume too much go and watch the news. The BBC news in UK pinpointed the Pakistani community in Birmingham check your facts. It's bad enough Terrorism always pinpoints the Pakistani community when the 7/7 was committed by different ethnic minorities but yet made sure Pakistanis stood out more and even in this case they are doing the same thing.
Assume too much????

The article was titled "in the ASIAN community."

And the article also stated "it is not only restricted to Pakistanis."

And as for the Pakis image in Birmingham....I don't have a clue. Thats your governments fault or their fault....but the article remains neutral.

You are referring to something beyond the article......I am just reading from the article.

[Z4K5T4R]

This wasa thread about Pakistanis. Stick to it. You want to deride hindus, start a new thread and go berserk.
urrm excuse me but read what you wrote and then quote me, maybe edit what you wrote too on the way.

You say Hindus are being disses by Muslims for their own actions and then you say this is a Pakistani thread stick to it and put down Hindus what the hell?

[Z4K5T4R]

Assume too much????

The article was titled "in the ASIAN community."

And the article also stated "it is not only restricted to Pakistanis."

And as for the Pakis image in Birmingham....I don't have a clue. Thats your governments fault or their fault....but the article remains neutral.

You are referring to something beyond the article......I am just reading from the article.
the article is from BBC who also broadcast on TV too, on tv they showed a Pakistani disabled girl as an example which was pathetic why not show a white girl that is disabled and explain why she is disabled?

Anyways Islam doesn't prohibit cousin marriage so why are others bothered by it so much. By the way they mention pakistani community go and read it again.

[bad_cheque]

urrm excuse me but read what you wrote and then quote me, maybe edit what you wrote too on the way.

You say Hindus are being disses by Muslims for their own actions and then you say this is a Pakistani thread stick to it and put down Hindus what the hell?
Don't put down hindus everytime someone talks about Muslims. We are not conjoined twins.

[The Anti Desi]

Stop with the Muslim/Hindu debate. Get another thread for that.

This thread may deal with religion, but religion is not the main criterion.

[dr_sinister1001]

Seriously, you fuckers are ruining this thread, why is it that everything on this forum has to be reduced to the lowest common denominator?

Cunard if you read this, don't move the thread to useless junk, because it's a good PSA if anything. Merely delete the nonsense, thanks.

:idea:

[The Anti Desi]

the article is from BBC who also broadcast on TV too, on tv they showed a Pakistani disabled girl as an example which was pathetic why not show a white girl that is disabled and explain why she is disabled?

Anyways Islam doesn't prohibit cousin marriage so why are others bothered by it so much. By the way they mention pakistani community go and read it again.
*sigh*

Lets go over this.......

The health concern was from the Asian community.

They did a health assessment.

They concluded the reason for the incident was first-cousin marriage.

Nowhere did they make derogatory comments towards Pakistanis, Islam, nor did they claim it was restricted to such. Nowhere did they make derogatory comments towards first-cousin marriage. The main reason was the health risks associated with this community.

[Indian_Eyess]

Stop with the Muslim/Hindu debate. Get another thread for that.

This thread may deal with religion, but religion is not the main criterion.
umm, I dont think religion has ANYTHING to do with this thread. Its a cultural debate, but yeah, I agree with you, this Muslim/Hindu debate is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[The Anti Desi]

Seriously, you fuckers are ruining this thread, why is it that everything on this forum has to be reduced to the lowest common denominator?

Cunard if you read this, don't move the thread to useless junk, because it's a good PSA if anything. Merely delete the nonsense, thanks.

:idea:
I am the moderator now.....and I am not movin this thread yet. This is a very deep subject of discussion.

[Indian_Eyess]

I am the moderator now.....and I am not movin this thread yet. This is a very deep subject of discussion.
lol, when and how did that happen?

[dr_sinister1001]

I am the moderator now.....and I am not movin this thread yet. This is a very deep subject of discussion.

Great...

now do your job and inform these morons that hijacking real discussion is annoying and intolerable.

:idea:

[The Anti Desi]

lol, when and how did that happen?
Cunard recommended me to the admins, and I took the offer. I became mod last weekend.

[Indian_Eyess]

Cunard recommended me to the admins, and I took the offer. I became mod last weekend.
nice, very interesting...congrats, if u feel thats an honor :)

[The Anti Desi]

nice, very interesting...congrats, if u feel thats an honor :)
Its a heck of a responsibility....and there are times emotions might get in the way, but I'd say its an honor for me. :)

Thanx.

[The Anti Desi]

So you're saying when we muslims say Hindus do it too you consider it as a diss? Man on this site Islamis put down all the time by non-muslims but it's a rare case seeing Hindus being dissed for it. :no: maybe you should read things carefully

We're proud of what we do fact is why does it bother other people so much and why the case of pinpointing one community when it is a case that is done world widely.
I see it going both ways....and I don't want either of y'all to start it.

[methodman535]

I don't understand this tradition, or why it's allowed in the culture. If there are recessive genetic diseases running in the family and two cousins marry 1 in four of their children will have that typically unexpressed genetic disease. That's a pretty big chance of having a retarded baby, why would anyone want to take that risk?

Culture or no culture that tradition is stupid... and should be frowned upon.

:idea:

Actually in the short term that would be very painful, but in the long term over multiple generations that would reduce the number of undesirable genomes and clean up the gene pool, removing undesirable recessive traits much faster than in the general population.

This is assuming, that someone ensures the retards dont procreate at all(since procreation is arranged to begin with).

[dr_sinister1001]

Actually in the short term that would be very painful, but in the long term over multiple generations that would reduce the number of undesirable genomes and clean up the gene pool, removing undesirable recessive traits much faster than in the general population.

This is assuming, that someone ensures the retards dont procreate at all(since procreation is arranged to begin with).

No that would be suicide... Eventually you will produce an entire population of retards. And the ones who survive would still carry the recessive gene...

The fastest way to eliminate a recessive gene from a population is to breed with populations that don't have the gene. Meaning in one generation...

Seriously stop trying to be clever. And respond with something relavant.

:idea:

[methodman535]

No that would be suicide... Eventually you will produce an entire population of retards. And the ones who survive would still carry the recessive gene...

The fastest way to eliminate a recessive gene from a population is to breed with populations that don't have the gene. Meaning in one generation...

Seriously stop trying to be clever. And respond with something relavant.

:idea:

Im not trying to be clever at all, this is just rudimentary logic. How on earth can a recessive gene dissappear faster if it gets spread(undetected) into the general gene pool?

Example: genome N= normal gene, genome r= retard gene thats also recessive. Two people, assume them to be first or second or even third cousins marry and have kids and each have the pairs Nr and Nr as their genes. They have 4 children, one is NN(Perfect and untainted), two are Nr(carriers with normal intelligence) and one is a retardrr. Now the fuctards will not procreate so thats a reduction of 50% in just one generation of the bad gene.

How? Because it was flushed out faster. Explain to me how this will produce an entire population of retards?

[Irreligious Left]

Yeah, it used to happen. I didn't want to be the one to break it to drsinister ;)

Yeah, my paternal grandparents were first cousins. I think the practice has been competely phased out, though. I think it had something do with the matrilineal system of inheritance and the conveyancing of inheritable property, or something like that.

[dr_sinister1001]

Im not trying to be clever at all, this is just rudimentary logic. How on earth can a recessive gene dissappear faster if it gets spread(undetected) into the general gene pool?

Example: genome N= normal gene, genome r= retard gene thats also recessive. Two people, assume them to be first or second or even third cousins marry and have kids and each have the pairs Nr and Nr as their genes. They have 4 children, one is NN(Perfect and untainted), two are Nr(carriers with normal intelligence) and one is a retardrr. Now the fuctards will not procreate so thats a reduction of 50% in just one generation of the bad gene.

How? Because it was flushed out faster. Explain to me how this will produce an entire population of retards?

1stly... If you breed with a population that doesn't have the trait, then there will be no retarded child. There will only be a 25% chance of having a carrier... in one generation you've eliminated the disease, in 3 you've reduced the occurrence of the recessive trait to 6%. That is a much quicker method... of removing the trait.

With in-breeding

1 in 4 dies, 2 in 4 have the recessive trait and 1 in 4 doesn't have the gene at all.

25% chance of a fully healthy child (genetically speaking)

There is only a 12% chance that this will be true in the next generation... so essentially as the population increases more and more of them will have the recessive gene...

[You proved your point, and I kept all your criterion intact. I will not accept the flame.]

[methodman535]

1stly... If you breed with a population that doesn't have the trait, then there will be no retarded child. There will only be a 50% chance of having a carrier... in one generation you've eliminated the disease, in 3 you've reduced the occurrence of the recessive trait to 12%. That is a much quicker method... of removing the trait.

With in-breeding

1 in 4 dies, 2 in 4 have the recessive trait and 1 in 4 doesn't have the gene at all.



Lets look at it a little more closely. These were the genes before mating: Nr + Nr. 50% normal and 50% retarded. The total number of 2 Normal and 2 retarded genes among both parents. Forget the phenotypes, just think GENOMES.

Now the second generation will be NN + Nr + Nr + rr= 4N + 4r which obviously is still 50-50 in terms of GENOMES in the first generation. However, the one rr will not get to reproduce. So the genomes that go into building the second generation are gunna be NN + Nr + Nr = 4N + 2r wich has gone down from 50% N and 50% r to 67%N and 33%r. Thats a significant reduction in the undesirable gene. The number of retarded genes will reduce by 50% the next generation.

Each successive generation will reduce the net presence of undesirable recessive genes

So...we went from a proportion of 50-50 down to a proportion of 67-33 with a massive jump in the healthy gene and a massive drop in the retard gene in this hypothesis.




25% chance of a fully healthy child (genetically speaking)



Wrong! You have a 75% chance of a fully healthy child(phonotypically) and a 25% chance of a fully healthy child(genotypically). The two parents were both phenotypically perfect but genotypically carriers.


There is only a 12% chance that this will be true in the next generation... so essentially as the population increases more and more of them will have the recessive gene...


What the hell are you talking about? 12% I assume you mean 1/8. You are saying that only 1 out of 8 second generations will be "fully healthy"? Right? Wrong again. Remember, in this hypothetical example the genotypically retarded do NOT reproduce. You claim incorrectly that only 1 out of 8 second generation genes will be genotypically perfect but thats wrong. The proportion was 1/4 in the first generation and in the second generation it can only get higher as I have shown above.

This is what you start with----> Nr + Nr

This is the first gen---> NN + Nr + Nr + rr

This is what will go into producing the second gen----> NN + Nr + Nr

This is whats flushed out-----> rr


Now the second generation will have a higher proportion of N and a lower proportion of r. Its glaringly obvious. And once again the rr will get flushed out.



YOU IDIOT

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

Look, inbreeding will never eliminate the recessive gene. If you think that, you just can't do mathematics.

If we assume that your retarded child dies and doesn't reproduce.

2/3 or 66% of the next generation will still be carriers... AND this percentage will increase every generation until everyone is a carrier or retarded.

But your population is dying not increasing... So no matter how you calculate it, even though the way I've given it to you is correct in breeding is suicide.

Don't try and argue with me asshole, ya don't know what you're talking about.

:idea:

[methodman535]

Look, inbreeding will never eliminate the recessive gene. If you think that, you just can't do mathematics.

If we assume that your retarded child dies and doesn't reproduce.

2/3 or 66% of the next generation will still be carriers... AND this percentage will increase every generation until everyone is a carrier or retarded.

But your population is dying not increasing... So no matter how you calculate it, even though the way I've given it to you is correct in breeding is suicide.

Don't try and argue with me asshole, ya don't know what you're talking about.

:idea:

You clearly dont understand what I just said idiot. The percentage of carriers will NEVER increase above 67% in fact it will go down gradually over successive generations because you are purging the entire gene pool of the recessive gene by not having the retards reproduce. Try looking at my post tomorrow when all the THC has left your bloodstream.

[Rohe]

i know its common in pak but there are some people in india who do that too..and they are not muslims..in one of my dad's store there is an indian guy who is married to his sister's daugther and she is her real blood sister

[dr_sinister1001]

Here's a rule of thumb.

The result of inbreeding results in a higher frequency of homozygotes.

So both the retarded population (that you won't allow to breed) and the fully healthy population (genetically speaking, meaning containing both healthy alleles)...

Your retarded population can't breed (dying)... so you may end up with a handful of healthy people in the a few generations... but you will kill the rest of your population. Hence the population suicide. Yah, you've eliminated the recessive gene, but slower than you could've by outbreeding, without your population dying but growing... And if you allow the retards to reproduce your population will be entirely retarded or entirely healthy in a few generations.

In 3 generations of out breeding the frequency of the recessive gene will be 6% with a strong population.

In 3 generations of inbreeding the frequency of the recessive gene will be 17/30s greater than 50%.


:idea:

[The Anti Desi]

I will not accept personal remarks like that....I will erase all that, for this is a serious discussion without flame.

You proved your point with your words, and I kept that.

I still have not moved the thread.

[khichica]

Cousins are na-mehram, therefore, Muslims could marry into their cousins. Na-mehram is a person who's not your grandpa, uncle,father,brother,or son.

[methodman535]

Here's a rule of thumb.

The result of inbreeding results in a higher frequency of homozygotes.



This rule of thumb...does it apply in my hypothetical example? I assume by homozygote you mean either NN or rr. But in my example the NN is desirable and the other two types Nr and rr are undesirable. Ok forget the fact that N is a unique gene, consider N as representing a set of desirable genes non of which can result in a retarted specimen. I just used the letter N for simplicity. Consider it a "normal gene". r is a busted up undesirable and recessive gene that causes retardation.



In 3 generations of out breeding the frequency of the recessive gene will be 6% with a strong population.


The key being WITH A STRONG POPULATION. In other words the undesirable, recessive gene is being scattered into a HEALTHY population. In a hypothetical scenario if only 2 people on the entire planet had those genes Nr and Nr and you suddenly let those two carriers loose in the world then yes the PHENOTYPES would APPEAR to reduce in number overall.

At what cost? By tainting the rest of the population. The recessive r genese will just slip undetected into the vaster gene poolNow tell me this, will those recessive genes just "dissappear" into nowhere without being flushed out? No they wont. And thats the flaw in your argument. In fact, in your scenario they will take MORE GENERATIONS to flush out than in the inbreeding scenario cuz in your own words quoting from above the proportion of homozygotes with that trait will be next to nil. Now if the homozygotes are next to nill how the hell will you flush the r genes out faster? Explain that one!


In 3 generations of inbreeding the frequency of the recessive gene will be 17/30s greater than 50%.



How did you arrive at this? My example shows the frequency of the recessive gene decreasing WITH EVERY GENERATION. You are talking out of your ass. I clearly showed that with every generation...1st..2nd..3rd...4th...the frequency of the undesirable gene r goes DOWN not UP because of the flushing out of the rr homozygote.

[methodman535]

The doctor behind the survey, Dr Mamoona Tahir, said around 40% of the deaths were due to genetic illnesses which were made more likely by the traditional practice of marriages between first cousins.

Dr Tahir said such marriages led to a 30-fold increase in the chance of children inheriting genetic disorders like phenylketonuria, a metabolic condition which can cause mental retardation, and thalassaemia, a blood disorder.

A 30 fold increase in death? I would like to look at the exact figures here. A 30 fold increase could mean something like instead of 1 in 100,000 people dying, 30 in 100,000 people die at birth. But this article doesnt go into whether these conditions are recessive or dominant. I would suspect in this case the gene is dominant? Or maybe its dozens of genese working in synchrony(more logical).

[LiLtOoCrAzYyY]

dudee...if inter marriages cause sooooo many deaths...than why does the pakistani population continue to grow at outrageously alarming rates??? :sarb:

[dr_sinister1001]

Look methodman, I've explained again and again why you're wrong, it's getting repetitive. I gave you the math three times. I guess you don't understand it... so let me try and clear it up.

Say we have a population with a recessive trait so a group of heterozygotes, if they inbreed the population over time will move towards a higher frequency of homozygous.

The 1st generation will have

25% (homozygous 'retarded') 50% (heterozygous 'healthy') 25% (homozygous 'healthy')

The 2nd generation will have

67% (heterozygous 'healthy') 33% (homozygous 'healthy')

The 3rd generation will have

25% (homozygous 'retarded') 50% (heterozygous 'healthy') 25% (homozygous 'healthy')

The 4th generation will be similar in distribution to your 2nd generation.

BUT your population has just decreased. So basically your population is commiting suicide.

And if you can't accept it from me, have a talk with a population geneticist... they'll give you the same answer I have.

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

A 30 fold increase in death? I would like to look at the exact figures here. A 30 fold increase could mean something like instead of 1 in 100,000 people dying, 30 in 100,000 people die at birth. But this article doesnt go into whether these conditions are recessive or dominant. I would suspect in this case the gene is dominant? Or maybe its dozens of genese working in synchrony(more logical).

Seriously... You are the poster boy for bullshiting, I keep telling you time and time again that you like talking about things beyond the scope of your knowledge.

People like you are worse than the ones, who can't contribute at all, because you just fill the discussion with bullshit... IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PLEASE KINDLY SHUT THE FUCK UP. That should be a sticky.

:idea:

[methodman535]

[You proved your point, and I kept all your criterion intact. I will not accept the flame.]


And then you did took a few more hits. :no:

[methodman535]

Seriously... You are the poster boy for bullshiting, I keep telling you time and time again that you like talking about things beyond the scope of your knowledge.

People like you are worse than the ones, who can't contribute at all, because you just fill the discussion with bullshit... IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PLEASE KINDLY SHUT THE FUCK UP. That should be a sticky.

:idea:

Im not bullshitting here. Bulshitting is when you assert something thinking that you are correct. Something you have done repeatedly when replying to my threads. My post is simply QUESTIONS. In other words I admit I dont know.

Your sheer stupidity is getting on my nerves, I think this thread should be immortalized as a testament to YOUR BULLSHITTING. You even admitted I was correct and then made up a pathetic facesaving tangent about "suicide". According to you a population will "commit suicide" in my hypothetical example by flushing out recessive genes fast.

That is fuckin ridiculous, my hypothetical example was just meant to illustrate that bad recessive genes ARE FLUSHED OUT FASTER as a result of inbreeding.

Even if you take that hypothetical example at face value, the population is INCREASING by 50% each fuckin generation at the same time as eliminating the retard gene.

If you DONT take that hypothetical example at face value then a population just has to reproduce faster with around 4 or 5 kids per family to completely negate that retard not reporoducing. So it will not die out! :rolleyes:

[methodman535]

Look methodman, I've explained again and again why you're wrong, it's getting repetitive. I gave you the math three times. I guess you don't understand it... so let me try and clear it up.

Say we have a population with a recessive trait so a group of heterozygotes, if they inbreed the population over time will move towards a higher frequency of homozygous.

The 1st generation will have

25% (homozygous 'retarded') 50% (heterozygous 'healthy') 25% (homozygous 'healthy')

The 2nd generation will have

67% (heterozygous 'healthy') 33% (homozygous 'healthy')

The 3rd generation will have

25% (homozygous 'retarded') 50% (heterozygous 'healthy') 25% (homozygous 'healthy')

The 4th generation will be similar in distribution to your 2nd generation.

BUT your population has just decreased. So basically your population is commiting suicide.

And if you can't accept it from me, have a talk with a population geneticist... they'll give you the same answer I have.

:idea:

You really are clutching at straws arent you? In reality something like 10% or even less of a population will be carriers for undesirable genes. If that small chunk of population shrinks SOMEWHAT because SOME of them interbreed then the only effect it will have on the population is a slight decrease in pop growth along with a SIGNIFICANT reduction in rare, recessive and undesirable traits in the tiny effected portion of that gene pool.

[paulie walnuts]

this is probably what sinister saw:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

"It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries."

"British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses."

[Notorious_Stud]

yep i agree wiv him. but i think its kinda ew if u call ur cousins bro/sis n then end up marryin them, otherwise its not that bad. i personally wudnt do it coz i cal all my male cousins 'bro'.

thank you for agreeing, :)

and hey, i think your rather cute :p :wavey:

[gabroo_shakeen]

Maybe the kids don't ALWAYS turn out retarded. But MOST of them do. And if you study science then you know that theres an increased risk. And if you wanna take that risk when it comes to your own kids and then call it the will of God in an effort to make ppl feel sorry for you and your kid then I suggest you STFU

[Walktheline]

Look, inbreeding will never eliminate the recessive gene. If you think that, you just can't do mathematics.

If we assume that your retarded child dies and doesn't reproduce.

2/3 or 66% of the next generation will still be carriers... AND this percentage will increase every generation until everyone is a carrier or retarded.

But your population is dying not increasing... So no matter how you calculate it, even though the way I've given it to you is correct in breeding is suicide.

Don't try and argue with me asshole, ya don't know what you're talking about.

:idea:


I think its high time you bust out a jpg of a punnett square.
And also talk about Ellis Van Creveld syndrome.
*huggles for you*

ps who's moderating this thread anyway? It's like a train wreck.

[dr_sinister1001]

I think its high time you bust out a jpg of a punnett square.
And also talk about Ellis Van Creveld syndrome.
*huggles for you*

ps who's moderating this thread anyway? It's like a train wreck.

Werd,

Methodman has a habit of applying what he calls "rudimentary logic" LOL, to topics he hasn't the scope to tackle. I could give him the lesson in basic Mendelian genetics, Punnett squares and the whole 9 yards, but the purpose is lost, he will still be in denial. Especially since, he thinks he's got it all figured out by way of his bastardization of genetic principles... i.e. the vague remnants of what he remembers from high school biology.

:idea:

[Walktheline]

Actually in the short term that would be very painful, but in the long term over multiple generations that would reduce the number of undesirable genomes and clean up the gene pool, removing undesirable recessive traits much faster than in the general population.

This is assuming, that someone ensures the retards dont procreate at all(since procreation is arranged to begin with).


I'm not understanding the logic of this post.

[dr_sinister1001]

His logic is that, if the children with the defect don’t reproduce then the homozygous frequency of the defective genotype will not increase, but only the healthy homozygous genotype... as is what happens when populations inbreed, the homozygous genotype frequencies increases. That much I agree with, his population will eventually after several generations, providing none of the retarded children reproduce will remove the recessive trait. This is an ideal scenario and the social implications of this border on eugenics, but whatever, look at those Icelandic folk.

He then goes on to say that this is the most efficient method to remove the recessive trait... which is completely false. I just did the Punett squares out of idle curiosity and by the 3rd generation where outbreeding would've brought the percentage of recessive carriers to 6%, inbred populations would still have a recessive frequency of 42%. So obviously this tradition of inbreeding is not some kind of quick path to "genetic purity". I'm sure you know as I do that inbred populations are seen as genetically unfit and like you brought up earlier are susceptible to founder-effect disorders. Not only that, with every successive generation as long as the recessive trait exists there is the possibility that much of the population will inherit the expressed form of the genetic disease and even if they do or do not reproduce the population will start to die.

So he’s applying what he thinks he knows to something that is beyond him, normally he'd get away with it but there are always those who know better.

In this case I think it's important that his ideas be refuted, because inbreeding is really a detrimental practice and should be done away with ASAP.

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

Also applying simple Mendelian laws to human genetic disorders as I have is purely for demonstration purposes only.

Real human genetic disorders are far more complex and the only way to get reliable data is to look at the actual real world numbers... I don't know how reliable the BBC is, but from the report it seems that those numbers were coming from the doctors themselves. As well, I have never read anything from a credible source in favor of population inbreeding.

:idea:

[gujju^chokro]

So do the pakistanis here who find nothing wrong in marrying first cousins , already know who they are marrying to ?
Do they grow up calling their cousins "bhai jahans" and "behnas" , and then all of a sudden change relationships , date them and then marry them ?
Or is it all pre-determined , somewhat like child marriages ?

[gujju^chokro]

this is probably what sinister saw:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

"It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries."

"British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses."

atleast 55% british pakis is a lot . thats like every one in 2 british paki here

[methodman535]

I think its high time you bust out a jpg of a punnett square.
And also talk about Ellis Van Creveld syndrome.
*huggles for you*

ps who's moderating this thread anyway? It's like a train wreck.

Awww looky looky sinister called in a cheerleader for moral support. Whats "busting out" a punnet square going to accomplish? Who here is failing to understand the basics of mendelian genetics here? :dunno:

And Ellis Van Creveld syndrome, I just looked up, is a very simple and easily identified recessive trait. Whats so unique about it? :sarb:

[methodman535]

atleast 55% british pakis is a lot . thats like every one in 2 british paki here

One more interesting little factoid about british pakis. About 70% of them are from the mirpur area in kashmir/punjab. Thats a very disproportionate amount of mirpuris....and these people tend to inbreed a lot. But besides the fact that they tend to inbreed in the UK...they do NOT represent the entire genetic spectrum of pakistan.

This is something that might also affect the statistics one way or another...the gene pool might have had a very high frequency of bad recessive genes to begin with. That area in pakistan is known to be rife with cretenism and goitre and other types of diseases that are comparatively rare in the rest of pakistan. There may be some significance here too.

[HeAvYmAcHiNeGuN]

its not a tradition...its just dat people want their children to b happy after marriage..and they think dat they will b more happy if they marry their cousins.but i really hate dat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my mother wants me to marry my cousin but i REFUSEDDDDDDDDDDDD

[methodman535]

Werd,

Methodman has a habit of applying what he calls "rudimentary logic" LOL, to topics he hasn't the scope to tackle.

Lets see you refute one single claim, just one of mine. And you have to quote me from this thread and after the quote you disprove me using either your own reasoning or a link that is indisputable. Or both. Don't LOL about it..do it!


I could give him the lesson in basic Mendelian genetics, Punnett squares and the whole 9 yards, but the purpose is lost, he will still be in denial.


You are gunna give me lessons now professor? :D Let me quote what you said in post #99 from this thread one more time:


[You proved your point, and I kept all your criterion intact. I will not accept the flame.]

That was you after I convinced you that your math(not mine) was wrong in that hypothetical scenario which dealt exclusively in mendelian tables. And you are gunna "bust out" a punnet square? Please teach, do that in the privacy of your own computer cuz I dont think I need it. :kekeke:



Especially since, he thinks he's got it all figured out by way of his bastardization of genetic principles... i.e. the vague remnants of what he remembers from high school biology.

:idea:

Lets get something clear. I never said I "got it all figured out" at any time. This is your own fabrication to create false claims that you pretend to refute when in reality I claimed no such thing. What I simply said was that recessive alleles will flush out FASTER in a hypothetical inbreeding scenario(which I presented quite well and which tripped you up) rather than in an outbreeding scenario. This is assuming the homozygote phenotypes do NOT procreate.

This doesnt mean I think this is the answer to eliminating bad recessive alleles in a problem group. Stop making things up.

[methodman535]

I just did the Punett squares out of idle curiosity and by the 3rd generation where outbreeding would've brought the percentage of recessive carriers to 6%, inbred populations would still have a recessive frequency of 42%.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Is this bait? Are you deliberately pretending to be this retarded so that you can lure me into correcting you(in this hypothetical simulation) and then you label me a eugenics proponent?

[Walktheline]

First of all, I don't like the term "retarded" being used so flippantly. It's really inappropriate if you're trying to have a remotely academic discussion (or in any context for that matter)

Lets look at it a little more closely. These were the genes before mating: Nr + Nr. 50% normal and 50% retarded. The total number of 2 Normal and 2 retarded genes among both parents. Forget the phenotypes, just think GENOMES.
So let's assume that N = autosomal dominant, normal and
r = autosomal recessive, abnormal

So in this specific case we also have to establish this:
You can't be 50% normal and 50% abnormal phenotypically in this example you are using (half retarded child? You are either normal or not-normal. If the child has sub-normal intelligence or only mild deformity, the child is still not normal). Your example is not one that would display the classic codominance or incomplete dominance. Recall the classic mendelian example of codominance - Red flower combined with white flower makes a 3rd phenotype which is a pink flower. Also recall the mendelian example of incomplete dominance - red flower combined with white flower makes a 3rd phenotype which is a red flower with white spots. By denoting someone as Nr, you are assigning them a normal phenotype but a carrier of a defective gene. So your initial population is 100% normal in appearance. We can't view this in terms of "GENOMES." The genome is actually collective term anyway, but I'm not going to split hairs over semantics.

Now the second generation will be NN + Nr + Nr + rr= 4N + 4r which obviously is still 50-50 in terms of GENOMES in the first generation. However, the one rr will not get to reproduce. So the genomes that go into building the second generation are gunna be NN + Nr + Nr = 4N + 2r wich has gone down from 50% N and 50% r to 67%N and 33%r. Thats a significant reduction in the undesirable gene. The number of retarded genes will reduce by 50% the next generation.
Each successive generation will reduce the net presence of undesirable recessive genes

So you established the the first group is Nr x Nr. This is what the very first mating will produce:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y14/Shgandhi/p1.jpg

The second generation is phenotypically 75% normal and 25% abnormal. Genotypically, it is 50% heterozygous, 25% homozygous recessive, and 25% homozygous dominant. And as you said, gene-wise, 50% of the genes are normal and 50% of the genes in the population pool are abnormal. Let us diagnose and sterilize the one phenotypically and genotypically abnormal person as you said. This is done by a screening process - Test the child's IQ, look for physical deformities, and perform genetic testing. Now we are left with ~33.33% Homozygous dominant (NN) and ~66.66% Heterozygous (Nr) (i.e. NN + Nr + Nr). As an aside, keep in mind that we don't kill the sterilized person -- he is now a disabled member of your inbred population. Now, let's make 2 Punnett Squares, one with the mating of NN x Nr and the other Nr x Nr so we cover all possible mating combinations:
Mating A - http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y14/Shgandhi/p2.jpg
Mating B - http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y14/Shgandhi/p1.jpg

So here are the individual results: Mating-A results in all phenotypically normal children, so no one gets sterilized. Even though your method of keeping track of the genes makes little sense, here it is: N = 6 and r = 2 for Mating-A. (and in your single-gene terms, 75-25 ratio in favor of N) Mating-B results in phenotypically 3 normal children and 1 abnormal child, so let's test and sterilize her. In your terms, we are left with N = 4 and r = 2 (67-33)


So...we went from a proportion of 50-50 down to a proportion of 67-33 with a massive jump in the healthy gene and a massive drop in the retard gene in this hypothesis.

I agree with this percent shift as indicated in Mating-B.



This is what you start with----> Nr + Nr

This is the first gen---> NN + Nr + Nr + rr

This is what will go into producing the second gen----> NN + Nr + Nr

This is whats flushed out-----> rr

Ok. So lets go into the second generation. The contributing pool is as follows. From Mating-A we have a possibility of NN x Nr, NN x NN, and Nr x Nr
From Mating-B we have an equal possibility of NN x Nr and Nr x Nr. Without drawing diagrams here is the final results:

NN x Nr = 50% NN - homozygous dominant, normal AND 50% Nr - heterozygous, normal
therefore, no one gets sterilized
N = 6, r = 2

NN X NN = 100% NN - homozygous dominant, normal
therefore, no one gets sterilized
N = 100%

Nr x Nr = 50% Nr - heterozygous, normal AND 25% NN - homozygous dominant, normal AND 25% rr - homozygous recessive, abnormal
therefore, 1 person gets sterilized.
N = 4, r = 4


So as you can see, the recessive and mutated gene is STILL present in the population. Why hasn't it flushed out as you predicted? It boils down to who we choose to sterilize. If we are only sterilizing the abnormal people, the carriers still exist and therefore the r gene lives on, remaining in the gene pool, threatening to cause genetic defects in the children of the inbred population. The only TRUE way to flush out the r gene is to sterilize both homozygous recessive individuals (i.e. the physically abnormal ones) AND the carriers (i.e. people who appear normal functioning members of society). As if sterilizing the disabled patients wasn't unethical enough, you are now going to sterilize people who appear normal as well? How will you be able to pull this off so that you can maintain your isolated inbred population? You didn't take your calculations far enough and you didn't take into account phenotypes or genotypes of populations. Genetics simply doesn't work on a individual gene to gene basis unless the mutated gene is DOMINANT (not recessive as in this situation). If the mutated gene is dominant, then the mutated gene would override the normal gene. The person would be abnormal and you could sterilize then, effectively flushing the mutated gene out of the pool. Hope that clears things up a little.

[nabx]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1180146.stm (not the report I saw today but something similar)

I was watching the BBC and I caught a report about officials in Birmingham advising the Pakistani population of the dangers of in breeding. Apparently it's a tradition to marry 1st cousins and other close relatives. Why is that a tradition? Marrying close relatives can result in a high frequency of either infanticide or if the child survives other recessive genetic diseases.

Is anyone here married to a close relative? Or practices that tradition within their family?

It is highly ill advised.

:idea:


hehehe Probibally the human mind can not chalange that of God's I guess.You are allowed to marry your first cousin doesnt mean that every one has to marry your first cousin's and its not bad as it depends on situations,In the world marrage directly propotional to love + Sex + Money these are all options and we tand to marry may be one or for all of the reasons above what we do forget is marrage is for one other thing which is Support.Consider you were stuck by an eartquake, half of the population dead, who should u go and support first??? I think the first thing that would come to your mind is "Is your family alive" in such casses if your cousin is alive then she has the right of your support, Dont you think? so there for marrage between close cousins is alowed because marrage has to be a general term!

[methodman535]

Ok. So lets go into the second generation. The contributing pool is as follows. From Mating-A we have a possibility of NN x Nr, NN x NN, and Nr x Nr
From Mating-B we have an equal possibility of NN x Nr and Nr x Nr. Without drawing diagrams here is the final results:

NN x Nr = 50% NN - homozygous dominant, normal AND 50% Nr - heterozygous, normal
therefore, no one gets sterilized
N = 6, r = 2

NN X NN = 100% NN - homozygous dominant, normal
therefore, no one gets sterilized
N = 100%

Nr x Nr = 50% Nr - heterozygous, normal AND 25% NN - homozygous dominant, normal AND 25% rr - homozygous recessive, abnormal
therefore, 1 person gets sterilized.
N = 4, r = 4


I have no clue what you are trying to do here, where is your conclusion in clear cut terms? This just looks like a half finished calculation. *sigh*
Your diagrams look sketchy too. Remember this is the percentage of what goes into the second generation 1NN + 2NR because 1rr gets flushed out. And no I didnt say to steralize anyone thats something you made up for malicious purposes, I just assumed cretins would just not have kids. Stop making stuff up that I didnt say.

Anyway....let me "illustrate" what your diagrams have obscured. Here is what the first generation is once again: NN + Nr + Nr + rr = 1NN + 2 Nr + rr.

Here are the ingredients for the second generation: NN + Nr + Nr.

Here is the spawn of the second generation: 3NN + 2Nr + rr. Now the percentage of rr has gone down to 1/6. Or about 17%.

Next...we have the ingredients for the third generation. Leaving out rr of course. And let me stress once again that this person is not going to be steralized, I never said that so stop taking words out of my mouth. I am simply assuming that these particular families that are in charge of their own matchmaking will just decide to keep this handicaped person around with them but not marry them off ok?

Ok back to the ingredients for the third generation. Its going to be 3NN + 2Nr.

Now....using the same principles we see that the third generation will turn out to be a three to two ratio of perfectly normal to the familiar 1-2-1 ratio. After some simple math without those pointless and annoying punnett squares graphics...we have 12 NN on one side and 2NN + 4Nr + 2rr on the other. The sum will be 14NN + 4Nr + 2rr. Now the percent of rr has gone down to 10%. The proportion of Nr to NN is also reducing dramatically as you can see unless you are completely blind. In the first generation you had an NN to Nr ratio of 1:2 and now its turned the other way at 7:2!!!





So as you can see, the recessive and mutated gene is STILL present in the population. Why hasn't it flushed out as you predicted?


When I said "flushed out" I was clearly referring to the rr genotype. The proportion of rr in the population has been drastically reduced, but more importantly the percentage of the r gene in its totality has been reduced. If outbreeding had occured, the r gene would be floating around undetected and would come and bite people randomly once in a while when it met up with another identical pair. The rest of the gene pool would have been tainted with the r gene, it wouldnt just "dissapear into thin air:. :rolloyes:


It boils down to who we choose to sterilize. If we are only sterilizing the abnormal people, the carriers still exist and therefore the r gene lives on, remaining in the gene pool, threatening to cause genetic defects in the children of the inbred population. The only TRUE way to flush out the r gene is to sterilize both homozygous recessive individuals (i.e. the physically abnormal ones) AND the carriers (i.e. people who appear normal functioning members of society).

Wrong. And that is truely sickening. You accuse me of steralization and then you turn around and present it as the only solution. People can also get tests done of their fetuses and get aborted if they have rr. Thats a much better way of doing it in my opinion.


As if sterilizing the disabled patients wasn't unethical enough, you are now going to sterilize people who appear normal as well? How will you be able to pull this off so that you can maintain your isolated inbred population? You didn't take your calculations far enough and you didn't take into account phenotypes or genotypes of populations.


Sorry but I did, in my head, and now they are in the post. You really should shut up about the steralization. You are taking such cheap shots trying to make me look like some sort of nazi race scientist. This discussion was PURELY an argument as to whether recessive genese get flushed out faster or slower when in inbreeding populations k?



Genetics simply doesn't work on a individual gene to gene basis unless the mutated gene is DOMINANT (not recessive as in this situation). If the mutated gene is dominant, then the mutated gene would override the normal gene. The person would be abnormal and you could sterilize then, effectively flushing the mutated gene out of the pool. Hope that clears things up a little.

Oh dohhh! I am not talking about dominant genes and I am well aware of how a phenotype can be flushed out without having to be homozygous. This hypothetical discussion was PURELY conserning RECESIVE AND UNDESIRABLE genes. And I dunno why you are using the word STERALIZED 20 times in your post when I never even mentioned it once. Seriously...stick to science not ethics. The bottom line is this, the article dealt with SERIOUS AND UNDESIRABLE RECESSIVE GENES. It said inbreeding causes more phenotypes to emerge from a tainted gene pool and I do agree with that. However the only POINT that I made was that in those families...by inbreeding they will flush that gene out painfully but a lot faster. I just wanted to challenge the unspoken assertion that inbreeding somehow "multiplies the frequency of bad recessive genes" which a lot of people including sinister seem to be saying. :no:

[dr_sinister1001]

[You proved your point, and I kept all your criterion intact. I will not accept the flame.]

^

1stly, that is not my quote, that was that Anti-desi fucker editing my post... another reason why this idiot shouldn't be a moderator... God what a tool....

2ndly, method man, you are just getting repetitive you haven't introduced anything new you just keep saying the same thing over and over and you're wrong on so many levels... Most notably in your assertion of a drastic reduction of homozygous recessive genotype after inbreeding in comparison to outbreeding. That's idiotic... since the reduction in the homozygous recessive genotype in outbreeding is 100% in one generation you moron.

:idea:

[Walktheline]

obscured[/b]. Here is what the first generation is once again: NN + Nr + Nr + rr = 1NN + 2 Nr + rr.

Here are the ingredients for the second generation: NN + Nr + Nr.

Here is the spawn of the second generation: 3NN + 2Nr + rr. Now the percentage of rr has gone down to 1/6. Or about 17%.



Show us the calculations from the mating of generation 2 (NN + Nr + Nr) to get the spawn as you say (3NN + 2Nr + rr).

[methodman535]

[You proved your point, and I kept all your criterion intact. I will not accept the flame.]

^

1stly, that is not my quote, that was that Anti-desi fucker editing my post... another reason why this idiot shouldn't be a moderator... God what a tool....


Yes indeed, a tool he is for thinking you proved your point. He probably forgot his multiplication tables a year after they were drilled into him and now he has the audacity to assume my assertion is disproved by you. :rolleyes:



2ndly, method man, you are just getting repetitive you haven't introduced anything new you just keep saying the same thing over and over and you're



I only said it once, but now you have conscripted your sidekick Walktheline to wear me down with total bullshit and flawed math to boot. Lets see if she has more common sense than you and backs off.



wrong on so many levels... Most notably in your assertion of a drastic reduction of homozygous recessive genotype after inbreeding in comparison to outbreeding. That's idiotic... since the reduction in the homozygous recessive genotype in outbreeding is 100% in one generation you moron.

:idea:

I have told you this before, I am aware that in the case of a RECESSIVE gene the phenotype will be normal cuz it will be like pissing that r gene away in an ocean instead of a tiny swimming pool. Yes, the rr genotype and hence the retarded phenotype will vanish but the AGGREGATE amount of r genes will not go down. Quit pretending over and over again that I dont understand this. You know full well that I do. You are just trying to cover your previous blunders in the mendelian calculations. The most recent one is this:


I just did the Punett squares out of idle curiosity and by the 3rd generation where outbreeding would've brought the percentage of recessive carriers to 6%, inbred populations would still have a recessive frequency of 42%. So obviously this tradition of inbreeding is not some kind of quick path to "genetic purity".


Now thats complete and utter BULLSHIT. How do you expect to post nonsense like this and assume it will slip by me? And your sidekick had a brain fart with those precious "punnett squares" too. Neither you nor your help has found a flaw in my THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS. But you keep whining like babies and sneaking in cheap shots like accusing me of being pro eugenics and twisting my words around away from their real meaning.

Anyway...to clarify once again. I never said that the INCIDENCE or FREQUENCY of recessive homozygote genotypes would decrease due to inbreeding in the first generation so quit quoting me on that repeatedly. Dont try and connect my HYPOTHETICAL example to the REAL WORLD ok? Just admit your Punett squares skills are ghetto the both of you.

[methodman535]

Show us the calculations from the mating of generation 2 (NN + Nr + Nr) to get the spawn as you say (3NN + 2Nr + rr).


I will dont worry. But you finish your calculation FIRST and then state your conclusion. In your post you just dropped the math and started talking about steralization and eugenics. Since you were the one who made such a big show with those fancy graphics, you finish your three generation punnet square simulation first and then I will spit out my calcs ok?

[Walktheline]

I will dont worry. But you finish your calculation FIRST and then state your conclusion. In your post you just dropped the math and started talking about steralization and eugenics. Since you were the one who made such a big show with those fancy graphics, you finish your three generation punnet square simulation first and then I will spit out my calcs ok?

I completed all my calculations. Which calculation are you talking about specifically? I'll try to clarify it.

[methodman535]

I completed all my calculations. Which calculation are you talking about specifically? I'll try to clarify it.

Clarify this:


Ok. So lets go into the second generation. The contributing pool is as follows. From Mating-A we have a possibility of NN x Nr, NN x NN, and Nr x Nr
From Mating-B we have an equal possibility of NN x Nr and Nr x Nr. Without drawing diagrams here is the final results:

NN x Nr = 50% NN - homozygous dominant, normal AND 50% Nr - heterozygous, normal
therefore, no one gets sterilized
N = 6, r = 2

NN X NN = 100% NN - homozygous dominant, normal
therefore, no one gets sterilized
N = 100%

Nr x Nr = 50% Nr - heterozygous, normal AND 25% NN - homozygous dominant, normal AND 25% rr - homozygous recessive, abnormal
therefore, 1 person gets sterilized.
N = 4, r = 4


And in answer to your question of how I did my calculations, I simply took the gametes, separated them into pairs...propagated each pair into 4...then merged them in their original(correct) proportions. I will repeat the gruntwork in writing after you clarify your work which I ASSUMED was gunna back up dr sinisters calcs which made him conclude this:


I just did the Punett squares out of idle curiosity and by the 3rd generation where outbreeding would've brought the percentage of recessive carriers to 6%, inbred populations would still have a recessive frequency of 42%. So obviously this tradition of inbreeding is not some kind of quick path to "genetic purity".


Since you two back each other up 100% especially when it comes to punnett squares I want to see how you corraborate his calculations...if indeed you do.

[Walktheline]

Clarify this:



And in answer to your question of how I did my calculations, I simply took the gametes, separated them into pairs...propagated each pair into 4...then merged them in their original(correct) proportions. I will repeat the gruntwork in writing after you clarify your work which I ASSUMED was gunna back up dr sinisters calcs which made him conclude this:



Since you two back each other up 100% especially when it comes to punnett squares I want to see how you corraborate his calculations...if indeed you do.

I'm posting autonomously. And can you stop calling people "retards" and stop calling me foul names? As far as the sterilization comment goes - That's the only absolute way to prevent the genetically abnormal people from reproducing if they are not born sterile already. Humans aren't obedient enough to listen to others and not have sex, especially since it's one of the more primal urgers. I'm not trying to paint you as the bad guy. I haven't even shared my view on inbreeding in cultures. That seems like a whole different topic, which is why I think this post has become a train wreck.
For the record, although I think inbreeding does increase one's chance of getting a heritable genetic disease, it's happened plenty of times without producing the stereotypical malformed babies. I believe Prince Charles comes from a very inbred, family, no? Besides looking a little funny :) (that was a joke) he's normal. I personally don't believe in inbreeding because of the way I've been raised. It's absolutely taboo in my family and that's why the idea of marrying/having sex with a first cousin doesn't appeal to me. Ok that being said..



I'll try to clarify my point now, step by step. We established that after the mating of the parent generation (Nr X Nr) we are left with this: NN + Nr + Nr + rr. Correct? We effectively eliminate rr from reproducing by whatever means, be it sterilization or forbidding the child to procreate. Are we on the same page so far?

[methodman535]

I'll try to clarify my point now, step by step. We established that after the mating of the parent generation (Nr X Nr) we are left with this: NN + Nr + Nr + rr. Correct? We effectively eliminate rr from reproducing by whatever means, be it sterilization or forbidding the child to procreate. Are we on the same page so far?

Just do a quick 3 generation simulation like I did, dont handhold me just shoot it all out. Either you think I am wrong or you think I am right. You know exactly what I concluded with my three generation HYPOTHETICAL simulations...so now give your conclusion, your final stats along with as much explanation as you can bear. The final ratios ok? "NN + Nr + Nr +rr" doesnt mean anything by itself. So back sinister's 42% up with your calcs. Then I will punch out the figures that I did last night ok? Dont keep stalling.

And I dont feel like marrying first cousins either but this isnt about personal preferences, its about genetics. No need to make personal remarks that will offend so many.

[il padrino]

interesting, but missing the point?, the whole point of sex is for genes to be mixed so there is more variety. Therefore more variation in the genome. If every body had the same genes, there would be a theoretical chance we could be wiped out by say genetic disease. Look at the hiv virus, we have discovered one guy whose body can fight the virus of in the uk.
Look at nature, it goes to great extent to get genetic variation. e.g. fig wasp symbiosis etc. why would it??? when Asexual reproduction is so much easier.

The coming flu pandemic, why is it coming? " sex " / genetic shift between normal flu and avian flu, creating a new strain against whom there is no protection yet. smallpox hasnt evolved as much, therefore it has nearly been eradicated,
Inbreeding may be okay in the short term, but in the long run it is obviously detrimental. Certain areas in the Uk, e.g. Bradford, unfortunately there are children being born with deformed skulls, mental disorders, enhanced directly due to inbreeding. my 2 cents imo

[Logical_Uzi]

I would like to clarify the points regarding Islam and Culture. The Prophet Muhammed PBUH advised the Muslims that it is permissible to marry from within the family, but it is preferable to marry from outside the family due to medical conditions. Today we need to differentiate between "forced and illegal" and "consenting and legal" marriages. The Prophet Muhammed PBUH told the people that for a marriage to take place both the male and female have to give their consent, and to force either one is something abhorrent and illegal in Islam (though rejecting a good Islamic spouse is extremely disliked within the religion). One also needs to remember that marriage the western way is to have relationships prior to marriage until the "ideal" partner is found. With the average age of marriage rising, rising divorce rates and growing numbers of single parents, this idea is clearly a failed concept, one which actually contradicts Christian doctrine of no sex before marriage. By replacing God's laws with man-made ones, one cannot expect "harmonious godly" outcomes! Please also remember the British monarchy was based on marriage to cousins, thus the concept is not localised to the Pakistani community.

Too bad this disgusting practise is vogue in the Indian sub-continent and should be banned. Parsis in India marry among themselves to keep the family fortunes intact.

[methodman535]

Inbreeding may be okay in the short term, but in the long run it is obviously detrimental. Certain areas in the Uk, e.g. Bradford, unfortunately there are children being born with deformed skulls, mental disorders, enhanced directly due to inbreeding. my 2 cents imo

Can you explain this in a rational and succinct manner? Say you have a half dozen villages next to each other where 50% of the marriages are between first cousins, 25% are between second cousons and 25% are between third and far cousins.

Now the total population of all these villages is 10,000 people. This will result in genetic disaster due to "inbreeding" in every single scenario you say?

[methodman535]

I would like to clarify the points regarding Islam and Culture. The Prophet Muhammed PBUH advised the Muslims that it is permissible to marry from within the family, but it is preferable to marry from outside the family due to medical conditions. Today we need to differentiate between "forced and illegal" and "consenting and legal" marriages. The Prophet Muhammed PBUH told the people that for a marriage to take place both the male and female have to give their consent, and to force either one is something abhorrent and illegal in Islam (though rejecting a good Islamic spouse is extremely disliked within the religion). One also needs to remember that marriage the western way is to have relationships prior to marriage until the "ideal" partner is found. With the average age of marriage rising, rising divorce rates and growing numbers of single parents, this idea is clearly a failed concept, one which actually contradicts Christian doctrine of no sex before marriage. By replacing God's laws with man-made ones, one cannot expect "harmonious godly" outcomes! Please also remember the British monarchy was based on marriage to cousins, thus the concept is not localised to the Pakistani community.

This thread is purely about the science behind it ok? Bye.

[Logical_Uzi]

This thread is purely about the science behind it ok? Bye.

No No i anint stopping your science debate you go carry on chu chu just wanted to pop in a opinion!

[il padrino]

Can you explain this in a rational and succinct manner? Say you have a half dozen villages next to each other where 50% of the marriages are between first cousins, 25% are between second cousons and 25% are between third and far cousins.

Now the total population of all these villages is 10,000 people. This will result in genetic disaster due to "inbreeding" in every single scenario you say?


It is perfectly rational, You are not factoring in environmental/social factors too. It is not a perfect world, we don't live in a test-tube scenario. It is true, that the practice of inbreeding originated in trying to prevent warring factions, family disputes and keeping fortunes intact, as the previous poster said. Also I only gave the Bradford example, because I used to live there, and it is mainly mirpuri muslims in that example. Remember some people convert to islam, like any other culture and introduce new genes. I am lookin at the Human race, on the Macro Scale, not Micro.

People are people, and you cannot say 50% will do this and that, some will die, before procreating, some will opt for love marriage etc..some will travel, some will rape, some will be promiscious, the list goes on..

[Walktheline]

Can you explain this in a rational and succinct manner? Say you have a half dozen villages next to each other where 50% of the marriages are between first cousins, 25% are between second cousons and 25% are between third and far cousins.

Now the total population of all these villages is 10,000 people. This will result in genetic disaster due to "inbreeding" in every single scenario you say?

it will, even without number crunching. If a person is born as a carrier of a mutated a gene, and he chooses to inbreed with someone who is genetically similar and also carries the mutation, the likelihood of the offspring having the mutation will be higher than if he had married someone who was genetically dissimilar - preferably of a different race altogether.

[Walktheline]

Just do a quick 3 generation simulation like I did, dont handhold me just shoot it all out. Either you think I am wrong or you think I am right. You know exactly what I concluded with my three generation HYPOTHETICAL simulations...so now give your conclusion, your final stats along with as much explanation as you can bear. The final ratios ok? "NN + Nr + Nr +rr" doesnt mean anything by itself. So back sinister's 42% up with your calcs. Then I will punch out the figures that I did last night ok? Dont keep stalling.

And I dont feel like marrying first cousins either but this isnt about personal preferences, its about genetics. No need to make personal remarks that will offend so many.

You're just being malicious now. I don't agree with your theory on inbreeding. I've showed the math in my initial post in case anyone else cares to see it. By logic, you will not eliminate the r gene from the population by simply preventing abnormal people from mating. The carriers will ensure the propagation of the gene. The carriers will keep reproducing and if carrier mates with carrier, they will have a 1 in 4 chance of producing a disabled child. For every disabled child you prevent from reproduction, there will be 2 more carriers produced. I'm sorry you don't believe me. Maybe you can be convinced by simply reading up on population genetics involving inbreeding? That is, if you do actually believe those texts.

[dr_sinister1001]

Method man just out of curiosity what is your education in? Didn't you mention something about only having a high school level understanding of biology? I remember you saying something like that...

:idea:

[Soccer_Hottie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1180146.stm (not the report I saw today but something similar)

I was watching the BBC and I caught a report about officials in Birmingham advising the Pakistani population of the dangers of in breeding. Apparently it's a tradition to marry 1st cousins and other close relatives. Why is that a tradition? Marrying close relatives can result in a high frequency of either infanticide or if the child survives other recessive genetic diseases.

Is anyone here married to a close relative? Or practices that tradition within their family?

It is highly ill advised.

:idea:


You know what.. I am gonna tell sameer or one of Admini's to ban you from this site.. First of all... you are always talking trash and trying to spark some type of debat against pakistani's and second you have no respect for Pakistanis and muslims .. I am gonna have you banned..

[dr_sinister1001]

You know what.. I am gonna tell sameer or one of Admini's to ban you from this site.. First of all... you are always talking trash and trying to spark some type of debat against pakistani's and second you have no respect for Pakistanis and muslims .. I am gonna have you banned..

LoL

Yah... good luck with that.

:idea:

[The Anti Desi]

[You proved your point, and I kept all your criterion intact. I will not accept the flame.]

^

1stly, that is not my quote, that was that Anti-desi ...... editing my post... another reason why this idiot shouldn't be a moderator... God what a tool....

:idea:
Read the rules......NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I WILL edit them.
Yes indeed, a tool he is for thinking you proved your point. He probably forgot his multiplication tables a year after they were drilled into him and now he has the audacity to assume my assertion is disproved by you. :rolleyes:

I'll let him prove his point.....I don't know what he is talkin about now.

[The Anti Desi]

I would like to clarify the points regarding Islam and Culture. The Prophet Muhammed PBUH advised the Muslims that it is permissible to marry from within the family, but it is preferable to marry from outside the family due to medical conditions. Today we need to differentiate between "forced and illegal" and "consenting and legal" marriages. The Prophet Muhammed PBUH told the people that for a marriage to take place both the male and female have to give their consent, and to force either one is something abhorrent and illegal in Islam (though rejecting a good Islamic spouse is extremely disliked within the religion). One also needs to remember that marriage the western way is to have relationships prior to marriage until the "ideal" partner is found. With the average age of marriage rising, rising divorce rates and growing numbers of single parents, this idea is clearly a failed concept, one which actually contradicts Christian doctrine of no sex before marriage. By replacing God's laws with man-made ones, one cannot expect "harmonious godly" outcomes! Please also remember the British monarchy was based on marriage to cousins, thus the concept is not localised to the Pakistani community.

Too bad this disgusting practise is vogue in the Indian sub-continent and should be banned. Parsis in India marry among themselves to keep the family fortunes intact.
Point 1.....The practices of people today in different regions are not always in religious bounds....its very ignorant to make Western synonymous with Christianity or Eastern synonymous to Islamic.

Point 2.....Neither his article nor the thread ever claims Islam as criterion for the practice....so attacking Christianity gives no justification for your arguments.

Point 3....The article states its not localized to the Pakistani community.

[The Anti Desi]

You know what.. I am gonna tell sameer or one of Admini's to ban you from this site.. First of all... you are always talking trash and trying to spark some type of debat against pakistani's and second you have no respect for Pakistanis and muslims .. I am gonna have you banned..
This article is not an attack on Islam or Pakistanis.

[dr_sinister1001]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/dr_sinister1001/Punnettsquare.jpg

:idea:

[superblade]

You guys are so simple.

Any clinical geneticist would tell you that there are far more complicated processes going on than pure mendelian genetics.....

Such a weak attempt to appear intelligent.

[dr_sinister1001]

Also applying simple Mendelian laws to human genetic disorders as I have is purely for demonstration purposes only.

Real human genetic disorders are far more complex and the only way to get reliable data is to look at the actual real world numbers... I don't know how reliable the BBC is, but from the report it seems that those numbers were coming from the doctors themselves. As well, I have never read anything from a credible source in favor of population inbreeding.

:idea:

How about you read the thread before you make your comments, superblade, or are you just irked that you can't follow the discussion?

:idea:

[Pompeii]

You know what.. I am gonna tell sameer or one of Admini's to ban you from this site.. First of all... you are always talking trash and trying to spark some type of debat against pakistani's and second you have no respect for Pakistanis and muslims .. I am gonna have you banned..

Lol w3rd. What's wrong with you sinister? Why the fuck are you provoking feelings of anger in these peons?

Yeh get him banned, he disserves it for stating the obvious. :!:

[superblade]

Sinister is a complete insecure loser.

Who, in their right minds, would draw out punnett squares, scan it, and post it on a website like this??

A poor attempt to validate your intelligence, or lack thereof!

Laughable!

[gujju^chokro]

dr_sinister1001 is tryhing to engage in healthy intellectual debate to prove his point . I guess its much better than the hollow rhetoric from a few others here !

[dr_sinister1001]

LoL,

Right, that's sounds almost as pathetic as trying to get cheap laughs from morons, using goolge image search. Which is fucking brilliant by the way, I love unintentional comedy.

That shit is beyond laughter and just induces feelings of pity. 'Cause I maybe 'trying to validate my intelligence' by posting 3 mins worth of rough calculations, but you're trying to validate your existence with all your trite visuals... and that REALLY is pathetic.

:idea:

[naantikki]

I wouldnt really marry a first cousin because of medical reasons, but all those who think marrying first cousins is 'ewwwww' probably have fugly cousins.

[methodman535]

You guys are so simple.

Any clinical geneticist would tell you that there are far more complicated processes going on than pure mendelian genetics.....

Such a weak attempt to appear intelligent.

I am not arguing that mendelian genetics is all thats ghoing on, it most certainly is not both in genetics as well as diet and environmental factors. I simply pointed out the fact that sinisters mendelian calculations were skewed.

[methodman535]

http://seattle.dnsdc.com/~ohsodes/images/punnet2.JPG

[dr_sinister1001]

LoL,

So now you're "guessing" it's 13.89%?? Yah, that sounds like more bullshit to me.

Do you even follow me this far? Seriously... You're way out of your league if you can't understand this high school level concept.

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

I am not arguing that mendelian genetics is all thats ghoing on, it most certainly is not both in genetics as well as diet and environmental factors. I simply pointed out the fact that sinisters mendelian calculations were skewed.

My ‘Medelian’ calculations?? Dude seriously shut the fuck up already with the bullshit... YOU are the one who introduced anything vaguely Mendelian... probably without even the foggiest idea what you were doing, I just had to prove to you how full of shit you really are. LOL, you pointing out that my calculations are skewed?? Dude, you couldn't even come up with any real figures, you got to the 2nd generation which anyone with half a brain could work out and then proceeded to bullshit the rest of the way... While each step of the way I gave you actual numbers which were corroborated after I finally sat down and did the calculations. You're done bitch... this lesson is over. Next time, think before you post nonsense, because, there will always be someone who knows you're full of shit. LoL, In this particular case, more than one person.

Honest to fucking god, you're a fucking pity case you know that? And that's why I entertain your stupidity, because I fucking pity you.

:idea:

[methodman535]

LoL,

So now you're "guessing" it's 13.89%?? Yah, that sounds like more bullshit to me.

Do you even follow me this far? Seriously... You're way out of your league if you can't understand this high school level concept.

:idea:
http://seattle.dnsdc.com/~ohsodes/images/punnet3.JPG

[dr_sinister1001]

*sigh*

How many unique pairs can you have with the letters,

A B C?

AB BC AC...

It's not that hard to figure out...

:idea:

[methodman535]

*sigh*

How many unique pairs can you have with the letters,

A B C?

AB BC AC...

It's not that hard to figure out...

:idea:

Hahaha its not just the "variety" of combinations that you can have but the PRECISE proportions that each one of these pairs makes before the next generation is spawned. This punnett square technique will NOT WORK by itself because it only works with whole numbers. Your 8.3% rr is WRONG in the second generation and naturally your third generation data is even more skewed.

How about this now...you use your maggot infested cereberal cortex to calculate what the REAL figures are and save your last shred of dignity in this thread. If you dont then I will. You are warned.

[superblade]

LoL,

Right, that's sounds almost as pathetic as trying to get cheap laughs from morons, using goolge image search. Which is fucking brilliant by the way, I love unintentional comedy.

That shit is beyond laughter and just induces feelings of pity. 'Cause I maybe 'trying to validate my intelligence' by posting 3 mins worth of rough calculations, but you're trying to validate your existence with all your trite visuals... and that REALLY is pathetic.

:idea:


Silly kid,

Its overt that you have no form of intellectual stimulation in your "real" life, so you come on a website completely deviod of intelligence and try to discuss advanced concepts, but noticeably fail through fundamental ignorance and general inability to prove your point.

You are no different that the ugly desi chicks who come on here and try to fake sexiness for male attention, or the desi guys who weigh a buck ten soaking wet trying to be a gangster.

ha ha, you put "dr." in from of your name...way to go dr. pseudointellectual.

[superblade]

I am not arguing that mendelian genetics is all thats ghoing on, it most certainly is not both in genetics as well as diet and environmental factors. I simply pointed out the fact that sinisters mendelian calculations were skewed.

I know, and I agree with you.

Human genetics is unpredictable.

For example one of my patients had a family history significant for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which is autosomal dominant, but was not affected by the condition at all. Another patient has the condition and the geneticist deemed it to be sporadic........so much for punnett squares, I thought.... Probably was environmental/lifestyle choices.....

[dr_sinister1001]

Hahaha its not just the "variety" of combinations that you can have but the PRECISE proportions that each one of these pairs makes before the next generation is spawned. This punnett square technique will NOT WORK by itself because it only works with whole numbers. Your 8.3% rr is WRONG in the second generation and naturally your third generation data is even more skewed.

How about this now...you use your maggot infested cereberal cortex to calculate what the REAL figures are and save your last shred of dignity in this thread. If you dont then I will. You are warned.

^ Kay that's just bullshit... how about you show us your work now? Hmm?

Seriously... you must be one of these retarded inbred pakistani kids... 'cause 15 posts and 3 days later, you're no closer to making a valid case and LoL, it doesn't look like you'll be quitting anytime soon.

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

Silly kid,

Its overt that you have no form of intellectual stimulation in your "real" life, so you come on a website completely deviod of intelligence and try to discuss advanced concepts, but noticeably fail through fundamental ignorance and general inability to prove your point.

You are no different that the ugly desi chicks who come on here and try to fake sexiness for male attention, or the desi guys who weigh a buck ten soaking wet trying to be a gangster.

ha ha, you put "dr." in from of your name...way to go dr. pseudointellectual.

LoL, fantastic..

So basically you're intimidated by my punnett squares and as a preemptive strike you're calling me out for dispersing a little bit of high school level biology, which you've deemed an "advanced concept". LoL, I suppose anything is an advanced concept for a moron that communicates solely employing inane visual drolleries... I could press on further, regarding your obvious insecurity in your own level of intelligence, but I think that much anyway, is clear...

Seriously, are you just upset 'cause I keep clownin’ your dumbass all the time? 'Cause this preoccupation you have with me is bordering on homosexuality.

:idea:

[superblade]

.....

[dr_sinister1001]

....

LOL, oh dear, I think you're trying to hurt my feelings... is calling me a racist homosexual your new angle? 'Cause, I'm still waiting for the fucking punch-line... Or... Was the clever portion of your post supposed to be the part where you took all those mean things I said about you and projected them back at me? 'Cause that desperate technique DID make me laugh...

Anyway, it's pretty ironic that you'd pipe-in just to call me out on my intellectual insecurities, and yet you've demonstrated that all you're capable of mustering up in terms of intellect, are sub-par gay jokes riddled with typos and name calling. Like I said man, you're fucking brilliant. Unintentional humor is your ultimate forte.

Seriously America, it’s over... Give this guy the fucking $10,000 grand prize.

:idea:

[superblade]

......

[dr_sinister1001]

....

LoL

That’s disturbing and at the same time I’m impressed you've picked up on even that much about me... Seriously, you're one weird mother fucka for spending so much of your time and energy researching all those factoids about me and then trying to psychoanalyze me...

LoL, You're one fucked up character.

So your final conclusion... after all that pain staking research is that, my intellectual insecurities stem from the fact that I'm Canadian? L-O-L

Ya know what? It's almost like you're on a mission to mask your own personal inadequacies... I must've hurt your feelings when I made this thread... Since it implies that Pakistanis are inbred retards LoL and the house of cards that is your dignity came crashing down... Honestly, if I had known these implications were that damaging to your self-esteem I would’ve made this thread sooner. But dude... It really has gotten to that point, where you're just clownin' yourself.

But hey, I'm entertained...

:idea:

[superblade]

LoL

That’s disturbing and at the same time I’m impressed you've picked up on even that much about me... Seriously, you're one weird mother fucka for spending so much of your time and energy researching all those factoids about me and then trying to psychoanalyze me...

LoL, You're one fucked up character.

So your final conclusion... after all that pain staking research is that, my intellectual insecurities stem from the fact that I'm Canadian? L-O-L

Ya know what? It's almost like you're on a mission to mask your own personal inadequacies... I must've hurt your feelings when I made this thread... Since it implies that Pakistanis are inbred retards LoL and the house of cards that is your dignity came crashing down... Honestly, if I had known these implications were that damaging to your self-esteem I would’ve made this thread sooner. But dude... It really has gotten to that point, where you're just clownin' yourself.

But hey, I'm entertained...

:idea:


Ha ha ha

But, dr. pseudointellectual you posted those facts about yourself on a widely read thread yesterday, and then presume I’m “researching” you? Lol, you do think more of yourself than you should!

Once again, bolstering my contention that you are in fact, a vainglorious pseudo-intellectual who disguises his low esteem, with a sham representation of intellect!

You’re a third year Biochemsucker @ York in Canada! Lol, live up to it, boy…Your phantasma of cerebral online pre-eminence is a fiddle-trick……..

Be proud of your mediocre achievements, and the inconsequential life you will lead when you graduate!

Tee hee hee

[dr_sinister1001]

You’re a third year Biochemsucker @ York in Canada! Lol, live up to it, boy…Your phantasma of cerebral online pre-eminence is a fiddle-trick……..


Yeah lol, and I suppose you're one of those retarded Pakstani kids suffering from some autosomal recessive mental disorder... And you certainly seem to be living up to that.

:idea:

[superblade]

Yeah lol, and I suppose you're one of those retarded Pakstani kids suffering from some autosomal recessive mental disorder... And you certainly seem to be living up to that.

:idea:


Yes, you're right my family has suffered greatly due to inbreeding....i cry myself to sleep due to the suffering...oh the suffering...*whimpers*



I have a new sig.....let me know if you don't appreciate it.


(Honestly, I will change it....its all in good fun.)

[methodman535]

dudee...if inter marriages cause sooooo many deaths...than why does the pakistani population continue to grow at outrageously alarming rates??? :sarb:


Hahaha good one. The reason is because they are operating outside dr sinisters little bubble world. Here is just one comical example of his "laws of population genetics". In a punnett square example which HE created he has two heterozygote parents producing two other hyterozygles identical to themselves, one perfectly untainted homozygote and one recessive homozygote which supposedly "dies". Now if you take the three that lived thats a 50% population increase in just one generation and he calls it "population suicide". :kekeke:

Oh boy this whole thread is just one big comedy show where he switches from punnet boxes to "population genetics" to skewed permutation simulations and he warps and twists everything to fit his quack science. :rolleyes:

[dr_sinister1001]

Hahaha good one. The reason is because they are operating outside dr sinisters little bubble world. Here is just one comical example of his "laws of population genetics". In a punnett square example which HE created he has two heterozygote parents producing two other hyterozygles identical to themselves, one perfectly untainted homozygote and one recessive homozygote which supposedly "dies". Now if you take the three that lived thats a 50% population increase in just one generation and he calls it "population suicide". :kekeke:

Oh boy this whole thread is just one big comedy show where he switches from punnet boxes to "population genetics" to skewed permutation simulations and he warps and twists everything to fit his quack science. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, so now it's about population suicide? I thought this about you trying to prove your logic that inbreeding flushes the recessive trait out of the genepool faster... I'm still waiting for your brilliant logic. Or are you ready to accept that you're a moron?

And as for the population suicide, if a portion of a population dies every generation in the case of the 1st generation 25%, your population is experiencing pretty large bottleneck. Especially in the real world where bad genes exist on more than one loci.

And how about you show some workings to support your claims? Unless you're still bullshiting...

I'm telling you no matter how you figure it,

1) Inbreeding does not flush out a recessive trait faster, not if we assume genes on one locus or in the real world...

2) Inbreeding will produce a population decline, or if we assume one locus a marginal increase in population in comparison to an outbred population.

3) Inbreeding is unhealthy and results in genetically deficient populations, which lack genetic variability.

:idea:

[ShivaChrist]

Thats hardly a case in America.....even among rednecks/hillbillies.

And I don't know the truth about West Virginia.....someone fill me in.....

I don't know any hard facts for West Virginia, but there is a reason a stereotype is called a stereotype... because its usually true, even if people don't want to admit it lol

I'm sure there was a lot of interbreeding in West Virginia a long time ago... dunno if its the same now, but I bet you there was a lot of it there :P

[Sphinx7]

they marry inside their family because they feel more secure and safe. They dont want their son or daughter 2 enter a dark hall way of hell, leading towards a disfunctional marriage or divorce.

Its plain 2 cee that they want 2 avoid a domestic situation. Many people marry for benefitial reasons; visa's, money, etc.. they are about scams and such. This is y marrying your cousins gives you a peace of mind, and all along those people are traditional.

peace

[shazia_878]

Hey there guys there's a survey going around on Desi marriage

You don't have to give name and it's online at:

http://www.my3q.com/home2/86/tohkeel/27627.phtml

[MolviCorleone]

Hey there guys there's a survey going around on Desi marriage

You don't have to give name and it's online at:

http://www.my3q.com/home2/86/tohkeel/27627.phtml

is this a forced marraige too, girl goes to pakistan when shes 16, fancies some guy, chooses him to be her husband, her dad says ok. 3 yrs later when her friends in england laugh at her for marrying a fob, she says she wants a divorce, her father disagrees with her and says she has no reason to divorce and they have already have a kid together.

girl cant hack it, she knows shes in the wrong but wants a divorce so she fucking goes to the police and tells them it was a forced marraige.

[MolviCorleone]

is this a forced marraige too, girl goes to pakistan when shes 16, fancies some guy, chooses him to be her husband, her dad says ok. 3 yrs later when her friends in england laugh at her for marrying a fob, she says she wants a divorce, her father disagrees with her and says she has no reason to divorce and they have already have a kid together.

girl cant hack it, she knows shes in the wrong but wants a divorce so she fucking goes to the police and tells them it was a forced marraige.


btw lol the guy isnt her cousin

:p

[Irreligious Left]

is this a forced marraige too, girl goes to pakistan when shes 16, fancies some guy, chooses him to be her husband, her dad says ok. 3 yrs later when her friends in england laugh at her for marrying a fob, she says she wants a divorce, her father disagrees with her and says she has no reason to divorce and they have already have a kid together.

girl cant hack it, she knows shes in the wrong but wants a divorce so she fucking goes to the police and tells them it was a forced marraige.

Why does she need her father's approval in England? Can't she just get a lawyer, go to the court and sue for divorce?

[shazia_878]

Originally Posted by MolviCorleone
is this a forced marraige too, girl goes to pakistan when shes 16, fancies some guy, chooses him to be her husband, her dad says ok. 3 yrs later when her friends in england laugh at her for marrying a fob, she says she wants a divorce, her father disagrees with her and says she has no reason to divorce and they have already have a kid together.


Na it aint a forced marriage - gal's changed her mind!

[MolviCorleone]

Originally Posted by MolviCorleone
is this a forced marraige too, girl goes to pakistan when shes 16, fancies some guy, chooses him to be her husband, her dad says ok. 3 yrs later when her friends in england laugh at her for marrying a fob, she says she wants a divorce, her father disagrees with her and says she has no reason to divorce and they have already have a kid together.


Na it aint a forced marriage - gal's changed her mind!


so how would an average gora know what a forced marraige is. im afraid it might become a trend for girls to get married and then when they want a divorce, blame thier parents and gall it a forced marraige even if it really wasnt.

[adren@line]

Dude, if people wanna fuck their first cousins, who cares.

Ill admit that Hindus do this shit tooo, maybe not as bad (usually 2nd/3rd/4th) but they still do it.

[adren@line]

Hindus in India do it in some places.

but not in America or anywhere else usually.

[Da CrAZy MaNi]

oH Boi DoNt LoOK @ MaH i CaNT eVEN THiNK aBOuT DaT 2 Ma GrL CuS LiKE DaT...Hmm BuH DaT iS a iNTeReSTiN QuEsTiON Y DeY Do DaT.. CaN sUM BoDii FiLL me iN On Dis..