Saudi Arabia's cousin-marriage epidemic
Analyst cites negative health effects of age-old practice in kingdom
Saudi Arabian men's habit of marrying their first cousins is creating
a health and cultural crisis in the kingdom, says an analyst of
international affairs who has studied demographic issues in the Muslim
state.
Writing in Jack Wheeler's intelligence website, To the Point, Neal
Asbury notes the practice of marrying blood relatives is beginning to
reap dire consequences.
"The people of the Arabian Peninsula for centuries have scratched a
life from the hostile desert and followed a simple rule when choosing
a marriage partner: Keep it in the family," Ashbury explains. "Many
marry their first cousins in arranged marriages to this day. In the
past, this was done to help conserve resources and contribute to the
clan's support and defense. Consanguinity (marriage between people
that are blood relatives) has been practiced in the Middle East for
over 100 generations, even before the introduction of Islam in the
seventh century.
"This is an ultra sensitive issue for the government and Islamic
religious establishment. It has been compounded by the Prophet
Muhammad's own family. His daughter, Fatimah, was married to her
cousin Ali, who was a revered Imam. Several other members of the
Prophet's family and inner circle were married to close blood
relatives."
Ashbury then explains the health consequences of continuing to
practice blood-relative marriage.
Writes Ashbury: "Research shows the Saudi rate for some diseases is 20
times higher than in populations where consanguinity is not practiced.
This has lead recently to Wahhabi clerics gingerly counseling young
men to 'choose a wife carefully with an eye to health.'
"It is estimated that over 60 percent of Saudis marry first or second
cousins, which is the highest in the world. However, the numbers are
still staggering in Iraq (58 percent), Kuwait (55 percent), Jordan (50
percent) and the UAE (48 percent)."
Ashbury claims the conservative form of Islam practiced in Saudi
Arabia makes any change in cousin-marriage a hard sell, saying
consanguinity "literally threatens the gene pool of [the Gulf
nations'] societies, making each generation physically weaker."
The analyst points out that the unusually high percentage of residents
of the Gulf being foreigners threatens the identity of the nations and
raises the specter of a "slave revolt."
Writes Ashbury: "Will conservative Islam continue to be blind in the
Arabian Peninsula? Or will it recognize that to be secure and to
thrive, it requires the diversity it has already created but continues
to neglect and abuse? Sooner or later, a Spartacus will arise from
these enslaved foreign masses, and a slave revolt will overrun Arabia
if it is the former.
"Yet how can advocates of fundamentalist Islam recognize the latter
with their brain cells so damaged by centuries of cousin marriage?"
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
13 May 2005 04:52:52 PM |
|
|
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
13 May 2005 06:19:37 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 07:54:09 AM |
|
|
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 09:24:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts", and
everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred against
an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you allow that
to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the false sense of
power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are, in fact,
committing a great evil.
Woods
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
16 May 2005 10:18:47 AM |
|
|
Woods the Brain damaged fool wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts", and
everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred against
an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you allow that
to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the false sense of
power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are, in fact,
committing a great evil.
Woods
LOL!!!
It's people like you with your heads in the sand and eyes firmly shut
that will lead to the West being defeated.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
16 May 2005 07:45:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Woods the Brain damaged fool wrote:
wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts", and
everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred against
an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you allow that
to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the false sense of
power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are, in fact,
committing a great evil.
Woods
LOL!!!
It's people like you with your heads in the sand and eyes firmly shut
that will lead to the West being defeated.
IOW - I'm dead on and you as much as admit that your intent for posting
anything and everything negative you can find about non-white,
non-christians is pure and evil bigotry.
Woods
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
17 May 2005 11:06:56 AM |
|
|
Woods wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Woods the Brain damaged fool wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts", and
everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred against
an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you allow that
to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the false sense of
power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are, in fact,
committing a great evil.
Woods
LOL!!!
It's people like you with your heads in the sand and eyes firmly shut
that will lead to the West being defeated.
IOW - I'm dead on and you as much as admit that your intent for posting
anything and everything negative you can find about non-white,
non-christians is pure and evil bigotry.
Woods
You're delusional and unable to see or accept reality.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
17 May 2005 04:38:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Woods wrote:
wrote:
Woods the Brain damaged fool wrote:
wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts", and
everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred against
an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you allow that
to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the false sense of
power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are, in fact,
committing a great evil.
Woods
LOL!!!
It's people like you with your heads in the sand and eyes firmly shut
that will lead to the West being defeated.
IOW - I'm dead on and you as much as admit that your intent for posting
anything and everything negative you can find about non-white,
non-christians is pure and evil bigotry.
Woods
You're delusional and unable to see or accept reality.
Or, in TonySpeak - "Retreat! Uncle! I give up! I can't refute this!!"
Woods
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 10:43:48 AM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts", and
everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred against
an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you allow that
to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the false sense of
power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are, in fact,
committing a great evil.
Just to be clear on the reason for my 'fact filled post'...
I said:
"genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be
cultural rather than biological in origin)"
I want to be quite clear that I'm not 'demonising' anyone with this
information. As I have clearly indicated, behavioural traits are
usually cultural, or more correctly perhaps, environmental, ie many of
them are learned behaviour from within the family and the
society/culture in which the individual lives.
One should also bear in mind that whilst the incidence of 1st cousin
marriages in Arab countries is high, the incidence of genetic problems
is not of the same order, suggesting that the gene pool is relatively
(no pun intended) free of lethal or undesirable recessives. Given the
nature of their environment, it's highly likely that undesirable genetic
traits would have been culled heavily over the centuries. In a land
that is tight on resources, deformed or defective children are less
likely to survive and go on to reproduce.
Natural selection still operates even when intelligence is present.
The risk here for these populations is that in the long term the chances
of getting recurrent genetic problems are not insignificant. It's not
too late to do something about it, but the cultural behaviour that
encourages this type of pairing is the real problem and it seems
unlikely that it will change without some significant attitude adjustment.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 12:02:20 PM |
|
|
The CO wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts",
and everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred
against an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you
allow that to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the
false sense of power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are,
in fact, committing a great evil.
Just to be clear on the reason for my 'fact filled post'...
I said:
"genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be
cultural rather than biological in origin)"
I want to be quite clear that I'm not 'demonising' anyone with this
I know *you* aren't, but my response was geared toward those that took
your post to do exactly that, rather than your post.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 11:50:24 AM |
|
|
The CO wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts",
and everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred
against an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you
allow that to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the
false sense of power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are,
in fact, committing a great evil.
Just to be clear on the reason for my 'fact filled post'...
I said:
"genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be
cultural rather than biological in origin)"
I want to be quite clear that I'm not 'demonising' anyone with this
information.
CO, nobody thinks that.
It's Tony who creates threads like these for the sole purpose of
fuelling hatred. Being a low-life zero, it makes him feel a little bigger.
Sadly for him in this instance, he got caught encouraging incest.
This is totally normal for sick-boy Tone, nearly everything he rails
against, he's personally mired in. The shrinks call it projection.
-A
As I have clearly indicated, behavioural traits are
usually cultural, or more correctly perhaps, environmental, ie many of
them are learned behaviour from within the family and the
society/culture in which the individual lives.
One should also bear in mind that whilst the incidence of 1st cousin
marriages in Arab countries is high, the incidence of genetic problems
is not of the same order, suggesting that the gene pool is relatively
(no pun intended) free of lethal or undesirable recessives. Given the
nature of their environment, it's highly likely that undesirable genetic
traits would have been culled heavily over the centuries. In a land
that is tight on resources, deformed or defective children are less
likely to survive and go on to reproduce.
Natural selection still operates even when intelligence is present.
The risk here for these populations is that in the long term the chances
of getting recurrent genetic problems are not insignificant. It's not
too late to do something about it, but the cultural behaviour that
encourages this type of pairing is the real problem and it seems
unlikely that it will change without some significant attitude adjustment.
The CO
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
16 May 2005 10:23:57 AM |
|
|
Amy The Corporate Welfare Witch wrote:
The CO wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts",
and everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred
against an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you
allow that to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the
false sense of power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are,
in fact, committing a great evil.
Just to be clear on the reason for my 'fact filled post'...
I said:
"genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be
cultural rather than biological in origin)"
I want to be quite clear that I'm not 'demonising' anyone with this
information.
CO, nobody thinks that.
It's Tony who creates threads like these for the sole purpose of
fuelling hatred.
-A
Wrong.
I expose the truth, which you and your Liberal friends simply can't
accept.
Now had the article been about caucasion males, you would be cheering.
Oh, BTW, I didn't write the article or do the research on it, I merely
posted it, nerd.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
16 May 2005 10:41:26 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Amy The Corporate Welfare Witch wrote:
The CO wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts",
and everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred
against an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you
allow that to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the
false sense of power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are,
in fact, committing a great evil.
Just to be clear on the reason for my 'fact filled post'...
I said:
"genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be
cultural rather than biological in origin)"
I want to be quite clear that I'm not 'demonising' anyone with this
information.
CO, nobody thinks that.
It's Tony who creates threads like these for the sole purpose of
fuelling hatred.
<unsnip>
Being a low-life zero, it makes him feel a little bigger.
Sadly for him in this instance, he got caught encouraging incest.
This is totally normal for sick-boy Tone, nearly everything he rails
against, he's personally mired in. The shrinks call it projection.
</unsnip>
Wrong.
I expose the truth, which you and your Liberal friends simply can't
accept.
Now had the article been about caucasion males, you would be cheering.
Nope, I'd be gobsmacked.
Oh, BTW, I didn't write the article or do the research on it, I merely
posted it, nerd.
The research you performed was in the seeking out, high and low... ah-ha
towel-head slam! Perfect for a Nosty group.
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
17 May 2005 11:03:57 AM |
|
|
Amy The Obsessed Wacko wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Amy The Corporate Welfare Witch wrote:
The CO wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts",
and everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred
against an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you
allow that to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the
false sense of power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are,
in fact, committing a great evil.
Just to be clear on the reason for my 'fact filled post'...
I said:
"genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be
cultural rather than biological in origin)"
I want to be quite clear that I'm not 'demonising' anyone with this
information.
CO, nobody thinks that.
It's Tony who creates threads like these for the sole purpose of
fuelling hatred.
<unsnip>
Being a low-life zero,
Yes you are.
Sadly for him in this instance, he got caught encouraging incest.
Wrong.
If you want to continue to fantasize about something from nine years
ago, that's your problem (and obsession), and if you want to fantasize
that the woman in the picture that was posted 9 fricken years ago was
that guys sister, go right ahead; I and everyone else who saw the
picture knew it was a model and not his sister.
Wrong.
I expose the truth, which you and your Liberal friends simply can't
accept.
Now had the article been about caucasion males, you would be cheering.
Nope, I'd be gobsmacked.
Oh, BTW, I didn't write the article or do the research on it, I merely
posted it, nerd.
The research you performed was in the seeking out,
-A
Nope, no seeking involved, just posting news stories that are relevant
to the times we live in.
That you can't face up to it is entirely your problem, nerd.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 11:28:50 AM |
|
|
The CO wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
Not having any perception that has not already been spoonfed to you, I
shall point out that the "upset" has nothing to do with the "facts",
and everything to do with the intent for posting - instilling hatred
against an entire group of people. We all know what happens when you
allow that to continue, but some of you are far too caught up in the
false sense of power you get from your bigotry to accept that you are,
in fact, committing a great evil.
Just to be clear on the reason for my 'fact filled post'...
I said:
"genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be
cultural rather than biological in origin)"
I was going to point that out to Meathead, but figured it a waste of
time since he didn't like read any of your original post anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 08:09:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Tony says here, Tony says elsewhere...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.pantyhose/msg/d8d1eac88d0baf9a
********************************************************************
Tracey,
Suck his *****, then let us know how it was. ok?
********************************************************************
Incest promoter.
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
16 May 2005 10:16:52 AM |
|
|
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Tony says here, Tony says elsewhere...
-A
Can't say anything in defence of your Arab friends, eh?
BTW, there are medications that will help with your obsessions.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
16 May 2005 10:20:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
All rhetoric aside, the reality is that 'family circle' inbreeding of
this nature does increase the likelihood of undesirable recessive genes
being reinforced and passed on to offspring. So you will see an
increase in the number of obvious genetic defects, but there will also
be a hidden increase in less obvious defects. It also tends to refine
body types and features as the gene pool narrows. It's sort of an
artificial evolutionary process that doesn't improve the genotype but
simply alters it. True natural selection is more likely to cull a
contrasurvival trait as the individual will be less likely to reproduce.
The first cousin approach means that, say, a female with a disfiguring
genetic defect, or a serious genetically transmitted disorder that
required medical treatment on an ongoing basis, which would in a more (I
hesitate to says 'normal') selective choice scenario, reduce the chances
of her finding a husband, would be more likely to reproduce the defect.
The long term effects of *repeated* inbreeding are demonstrably
undesirable. In the short term, the chances of a bad reinforcement are
only slightly higher than the general population, so a single such
marriage within a family isn't that big a deal, but when it's repeated
over several generations, you are going to get a significant increase in
the number of recessive traits that are reinforced and appear or are
carried by offspring. The royal families of Europe were inbred quite
badly and this resulted in several instances of genetic traits being
perpetuated. The haemophilia in the line of the Czars is one instance
and the famous 'Habsburg lip' another. The Pharoahs of Egypt were also
rather fond of even more significant inbreeding, brother/sister being
practised on several occasions. Again, a single offspring of such a
mating has only a relatively small chance of having an abnormality, and
though it's obviously undesirable, doesn't invariably lead to a problem,
but repeated breeding will increase the chances of a lethal or serious
problem being reinforced and indeed the Pharoahs line had some issues
that were apparently perpetuated in this manner.
Conversely, it's also possible that it can exclude undesirable traits if
the parents are both free of it, ie have 'clean' genetic material, which
explains why some cousin/cousin and even brother/sister pairings have
produced repeatedly and not had defects appear, but this is fortuitous
and the result could easily be consistently disastrous if there are
known issues in the family history. The 'taboos' against incest exist
at least in part because of the observed incidence of birth defects in
the offspring of such pairings and partly because of religious
restrictions, which generally have resulted from observations of the
same observed incidence....
It can also be useful in a breeding program if you are looking to
reinforce a desirable trait, but it's also more likely to reinforce
undesirable traits. Breeders of cats will sometimes resort to 'family
circle' breeding when developing a particular genotype, such as a
particular head shape or eye colour combination. A good example is the
Siamese, which were originally nearly all Seal points and the
characteristic blue eyes rather pale and the head shape less 'wedgelike'
than todays lines. When a new colour appeared in the line (chocolate,
blue and lilac were explored in this manner) breeders would mate
brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son to produce more examples,
which invariably led to larger numbers of culls, lethal and non lethal
that had undesirable traits. When this got too high, they would
introduce an outside source and breed it in to the line to help cancel
out the undesirable traits. Naturally this doesn't always work and
there were issues that developed along with the desirable traits as some
desirable traits are linked to undesirable ones genetically.
Bottom line is that 1st cousin mating as practiced in Arab countries
*does* increase the likelihood of birth defects and does increase the
amount of less obvious genetic issues, which *may* include particular
mental attitudes (to the degree that they are transmittable, which is
arguably small - attitudinal traits are far more likely to be cultural
rather than biological in origin) and particular body shapes and facial
types.
The CO
I think you upset all the Liberals here with your fact filled post.
Tony says here, Tony says elsewhere...
<unsnip>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.pantyhose/msg/d8d1eac88d0baf9a
********************************************************************
Tracey,
Suck his *****, then let us know how it was. ok?
********************************************************************
Incest promoter.
</unsnip>
Can't say anything in defence of your Arab friends, eh?
Personally, no... YOU should be able to though, eh?
BTW, there are medications that will help with your obsessions.
Really? How about yours?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.pantyhose/msg/d8d1eac88d0baf9a
********************************************************************
Tracey,
Suck his *****, then let us know how it was. ok?
********************************************************************
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
17 May 2005 10:56:34 AM |
|
|
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
Can't sayanything in defence of your Arab friends, eh?
Personally, no... YOU should be able to though, eh?
In defence of them? Nope.
BTW, there are medications that will help with your obsessions.
Really? How about yours?
-A
I'm not obsessed with you, you however suffer from an obsession with
me which is quite obvious from you storing info about me on your PC.
Really sick.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
17 May 2005 11:02:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
Can't sayanything in defence of your Arab friends, eh?
Personally, no... YOU should be able to though, eh?
In defence of them? Nope.
In defence of incest, Yep.
BTW, there are medications that will help with your obsessions.
Really? How about yours?
-A
I'm not obsessed with you, you however suffer from an obsession with
me which is quite obvious from you storing info about me on your PC.
I don't store info, you idiot, my newsreader does... AUTOMATICALY.
Really sick.
Really stupid.
-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
22 May 2005 08:31:19 AM |
|
|
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
Can't sayanything in defence of your Arab friends, eh?
Personally, no... YOU should be able to though, eh?
In defence of them? Nope.
In defence of incest, Yep.
BTW, there are medications that will help with your obsessions.
Really? How about yours?
-A
I'm not obsessed with you, you however suffer from an obsession with
me which is quite obvious from you storing info about me on your PC.
I don't store info, you idiot, my newsreader does... AUTOMATICALY.
Yawn, your denial is noted.
Tony
Really sick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
23 May 2005 04:06:40 AM |
|
|
<itwill@happen.com> wrote in message
news:1116768516.0f65f8db9a68b3e25ded490e6681b247@teranews...
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
Can't sayanything in defence of your Arab friends, eh?
Personally, no... YOU should be able to though, eh?
In defence of them? Nope.
In defence of incest, Yep.
BTW, there are medications that will help with your obsessions.
Really? How about yours?
-A
I'm not obsessed with you, you however suffer from an obsession with
me which is quite obvious from you storing info about me on your PC.
I don't store info, you idiot, my newsreader does... AUTOMATICALY.
Yawn, your denial is noted.
Tony
You really are slower than retarded treacle* aren't you?
*I believe y'all call it molasses
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dani" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
18 May 2005 07:56:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:02:55 +0100, Absolute Zero
<amycaton@hotmail.com> wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Amy the Obsessed Wacko wrote:
Can't sayanything in defence of your Arab friends, eh?
Personally, no... YOU should be able to though, eh?
In defence of them? Nope.
In defence of incest, Yep.
BTW, there are medications that will help with your obsessions.
Really? How about yours?
-A
I'm not obsessed with you, you however suffer from an obsession with
me which is quite obvious from you storing info about me on your PC.
Obsession? Like impersonating me on sex groups like *you* did?
I don't store info, you idiot, my newsreader does... AUTOMATICALY.
And so does our handy-dandy google (which takes mere *seconds* to
search).
Dani
-A
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
13 May 2005 05:12:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
I'm constantly amazed at the vitriolic biles that's spewed by neoCons.
They have nothing positive or enlightening to say - it's all negative
and hateful. From such fruits as this, one can only surmise that theirs
is a faith based upon the AC.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 07:49:08 AM |
|
|
Woods wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
I'm constantly amazed at the vitriolic biles that's spewed by neoCons.
They have nothing positive or enlightening to say - it's all negative
and hateful. From such fruits as this, one can only surmise that theirs
is a faith based upon the AC.
Woods
LOL!!!
Can't accept the truth, eh?
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 09:21:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Woods wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
I'm constantly amazed at the vitriolic biles that's spewed by neoCons.
They have nothing positive or enlightening to say - it's all negative
and hateful. From such fruits as this, one can only surmise that theirs
is a faith based upon the AC.
Woods
LOL!!!
Can't accept the truth, eh?
Actually, I excel at perceiving the truth and accepting it.
Woods
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: This explains Mid-East Madness |
15 May 2005 09:25:53 AM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
itwill@happen.com wrote:
Woods wrote:
leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Oh yes let us stereotype all those beligerent so and so's and begin the
demonisation, they all inbred and dumb, no wonder they are our friends!
I'm constantly amazed at the vitriolic biles that's spewed by
neoCons. They have nothing positive or enlightening to say - it's all
negative and hateful. From such fruits as this, one can only surmise
that theirs is a faith based upon the AC.
Woods
LOL!!!
Can't accept the truth, eh?
Actually, I excel at perceiving the truth and accepting it.
Allow me to save Tony the trouble...
LOL!!!
-A
PS Yes, you do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
