Peterken05:
alexis007, you are here again

and you......i hope you would turn a new leaf in your belief system this new year

BraveGuy:


What about the Great Flood? Noah's three sons and their wives?

Your maths seems to be the BEST the world has ever seen, even better than Professor Dele Awojobi when he calculated 19 2/3rd for the politicians.

What about The flood?

If you re talking about reproduction after the flood.

Noah grandsons or daughters would have been first cousins you know. And it would be cousins bleeping each other in that case.

sinequanon:


Stop simply cutting and pasting, you dum.wit. You are clearly out of your depth and have no idea of what you are talking about.

You are only making yourself look more and more of a hypocrite.

And your next piece of hypocritical nonsense is the old "I didn't say it wasn't a cut and paste".

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2770-2_4#page-1



And,, btw., since you are so stupid and dishonest (too stupid to realize how stupid you are and how obvious it is that you must have cut and paste that description), I am wasting no more time with you. Bye!

stop all the rambling and face the objective truth.

i see no point in arguing with you slowpoke, you dont even understand tiniest thing about biology

sinequanon:
By the way, I should add for anybody following the nonsense that Peterken05 was spewing, that his original point was about homozygosity restricting population growth. Reasons given in the literature are not restricted to the "animal kingdom". He brought that in as a total red herring.

Species with 100% homozygosity can be successful, and there are many examples. So a purported one-off case of i.ncest in humans is a ridiculous explanation for restriction in human population. it would pale into absolute insignificance against other factors.

since you dont know what homozygosity is, lemme show you some examples or evidences why inbreeding or incest affects population.

first of all, inbreeding increases mortality and morbidity because if there are hamful recessive alleles(which i'm very sure there would be) in a population. the gene would have the possibility of resurfacing again and thereby negatively affecting the population. though it can be avoided if there is selective inbreeding (in lower animals) and that could cost a lot of money.

so many studies have been conducted, examples are
1. study on the amish settlements
2. royal families of europe: there is a case of haemophilia in queen Victoria's family.
3. study of japanese children after world war 2
4. study of a settlement called damman in saudi arabia

take your time to research and read on it.
here is a link for u. [url]http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm
[/url]


what has made humans survive so far is variation.

even there is a study that shows that at least 1000 humans started the world as we know it as our DNA reveals it.

studies that show fossils records of bones that lived 40,000 years ago, and you think the planet is 6000 years old? you must be joking
i'll try and get a reliable link for you

Peterken05:
since you dont know what homozygosity is, lemme show you some examples or evidences why inbreeding or incest affects population.

first of all, inbreeding increases mortality and morbidity because if there are hamful recessive alleles(which i'm very sure there would be) in a population. the gene would have the possibility of resurfacing again and thereby negatively affecting the population. though it can be avoided if there is selective inbreeding (in lower animals) and that could cost a lot of money.

so many studies have been conducted, examples are
1. study on the amish settlements
2. royal families of europe: there is a case of haemophilia in queen Victoria's family.
3. study of japanese children after world war 2
4. study of a settlement called damman in saudi arabia

take your time to research and read on it.
here is a link for u. [url]http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/QuantGen/Gen535_2_2004/Inbreeding_Humans.htm
[/url]


what has made humans survive so far is variation.

even there is a study that shows that at least 1000 humans started the world as we know it as our DNA reveals it.

studies that show fossils records of bones that lived 40,000 years ago, and you think the planet is 6000 years old? you must be joking
i'll try and get a reliable link for you

That is a more balanced post, and I am familiar with the research.

The conclusions are wrong, and your examples illustrate the oversight.

"Inbreeding" has no direct effect on the number of occurrences of a particular allele within a population.

"Inbreeding" confines defective alleles to small subgroups of the population, but the overall number of defective alleles is not directly affected.

What this means is that you can more easily anticipate WHERE and WHEN the alleles will cause a problem, not that they will cause more problems long term.

If a royal family dies out as a result of inbreeding, that does not weaken the population. It only meant that you could anticipate more easily that those alleles would pair up in a particular place and a particular time. All that suffers is a small confined group within the population.

If the alleles had been at large (exactly the same number), they would simply have multiplied and paired up over a longer period of time.

Small group dying out quickly vs a dribbling deleterious effect at large is what the contention is. There is no simple reason why one would be more successful than the other.

So it is wrong to conclude that inbreeding is a problem by producing selective or irrelevant (royal family) evidence. I think that Indians are relatively more inbred that Africans, but they don't have a population problem. They are projected to be the most populous people by then end of the century or mid-century (I can't recall which).

sinequanon

That is a more balanced post, and I am familiar with the research.

The conclusions are wrong, and your examples illustrate the oversight.

how?

"Inbreeding" has no direct effect on the number of occurrences of a particular allele within a population.

this is probability, that is why i stressed the fact that if there is continous inbreeding within a population, it can affect the number of occurences of a particular allele. dont you get it?

"Inbreeding" confines defective alleles to small subgroups of the population, but the overall number of defective alleles is not directly affected.

yh, defective alleles are always recessive or likely to be recessive. that is whole point from the beginning. i was telling you inbreeding increases homozygosity in alleles which makes the defective alleles dominant. how is not affected?

What this means is that you can more easily anticipate WHERE and WHEN the alleles will cause a problem, not that they will cause more problems long term.

dont forget we are talking about adam and eve, there is nothing like science then. they dont have any knowledge about biology or genes.

and besides what you are talking about is only conducted in animals (just to keep desirable traits or to create pure lines) and it requires alot of money to carry because of the expertise involved

If a royal family dies out as a result of inbreeding, that does not weaken the population. It only meant that you could anticipate more easily that those alleles would pair up in a particular place and a particular time. All that suffers is a small confined group within the population.

no, you are only talking like this because you know, flash back to when we have no knowledge about it and think of what will happen if people practice incest.
it does affect

If the alleles had been at large (exactly the same number), they would simply have multiplied and paired up over a longer period of time.

Small group dying out quickly vs a dribbling deleterious effect at large is what the contention is. There is no simple reason why one would be more successful than the other.

you are contradicting yourself. you said "There is no simple reason why one would be more successful than the other" and you think some would die out

So it is wrong to conclude that inbreeding is a problem by producing selective or irrelevant (royal family) evidence. I think that Indians are relatively more inbred that Africans, but they don't have a population problem. They are projected to be the most populous people by then end of the century or mid-century (I can't recall which).

you think? bring out the facts before we engage in the discussion


if you understand this, then we can move to geography and history before doing any math

Funny Op! the Christians could learn a lot from this tho.

Peterken05:
defective alleles are always recessive or likely to be recessive. that is whole point from the beginning. i was telling you inbreeding increases homozygosity in alleles which makes the defective alleles dominant. how is not affected?

The numbers are not directly affected. It is all there if you read properly. You are getting ahead of yourself.

If you disagree with this or want me to explain further, I will.

Once we have sorted that point out, we can talk about allele pairings and homozygosity.

There is no point going through your entire post if you are misreading things and skipping points.

xcapizt:
Funny Op! the Christians could learn a lot from this tho.

lol, they really need to

sinequanon:


The numbers are not directly affected. It is all there if you read properly. You are getting ahead of yourself.

If you disagree with this or want me to explain further, I will.

Once we have sorted that point out, we can talk about allele pairings and homozygosity.

There is no point going through your entire post if you are misreading things and skipping points.

what numbers are you talking about? explain further

Peterken05:



what numbers are you talking about? explain further

I am talking about the allele frequencies.

Let us start by considering allele frequencies in each generation for both asexual and sexual reproduction. Then we can consider the effect of homozygosity.

Let us consider a simple model:

2 parents, each with alleles A and X.

They reproduce and multiply, each generation being twice the size of the previous generation.

The type of asexual reproduction we are considering would have a second generation:

AX AX AX AX

The second generation for sexual reproduction is represented on average by:

AA AX AX XX

Do you agree, that in this simple model (before we consider the effects of homozygosity and survival) the frequencies of A and X alleles would remain 50/50 in all generations?

sinequanon:


LOL! Another enraged, ranting and terrified atheist.

btw, clever clogs, 6000 years is over 200 generations. If each family had 4 children surviving to have offspring, they could potentially generate over 2^200 children in 6000 years.

That would be over [size=14pt]1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/size] children.

3 children per family could potentially yield..

[size=14pt]100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 children[/size]
Over to you, with your "maths"...

where does death from deplorable living conditions and ilnesses in the early centuries factor into you calculation.

sinequanon:


Oh, so now we have moved from "two people" and "geography" and "conflict" to version 2 of your hypocrisy.

Now we are talking about homozygosity because "eve would have fvcked her sons".

Still we have no maths from you. What figure have you calculated that is less than 10 billion. Show us how.

How did you factor in your homozygosity. We are waiting for you to stop yapping, and to show us your maths.

And by the way, there is no direct link between inbreeding and population depression. This is a bad misunderstanding. Many species reproduce asexually and are successful. There is no mathematical model that could predict that success of 6000 years.

Did you take basic biology. Do yo understand mitosis and myosis. LIke do you have even a basic understanding of chromosomes or transfer of genetic codes. This is the problem i have with Theist rather than stick to their bible they venture into speaking about that which they know nothing about.Like pls do not use pseudo science to defend your fiction. It is an insult to those who put effort into these fields.

1ord:
where does death from deplorable living conditions and ilnesses in the early centuries factor into you calculation...

This is the problem i have with Theist rather than stick to their bible they venture into speaking about that which they know nothing about.Like pls do not use pseudo science to defend your fiction. It is an insult to those who put effort into these fields.

You are another classic case of a spouting, illiterate atheist. LOL!

I have to say that the theists on NL tend to be more eloquent and articulate than the atheists. The theists are able to make citations from the bible and appraise their understanding of what is written in it.

You, on the other hand cannot string together a logical argument, or even make a logical point.

The OP clearly fell into the trap of thinking that 2 people could not even potentially generate 10 billion people in 6000 years. I showed him that he was way, way out.

The whole point, you illiterate, is that you can't "do the maths" as the OP has mistakenly suggested you can. There is no way you can accurately predict if environmental factors would cull 1000000000000000000000000 people down to less than or more than 10 billion. There are too many unknowns, DUH!

Got it now? DUH!

And can you now see how irrational, unscientific and empty your rhetorical style of posting is. It is a DUMBO'S style, for folk who don't have a point, can't read properly and follow other people's points, and don't get to realize their own stupidity.

sinequanon:


You are another classic case of a spouting, illiterate atheist. LOL!

I have to say that the theists on NL tend to be more eloquent and articulate than the atheists. The theists are able to make citations from the bible and appraise their understanding of what is written in it.

You, on the other hand cannot string together a logical argument, or even make a logical point.

The OP clearly fell into the trap of thinking that 2 people could not even potentially generate 10 billion people in 6000 years. I showed him that he was way, way out.

The whole point, you illiterate, is that you can't "do the maths" as the OP has mistakenly suggested you can. There is no way you can accurately predict if environmental factors would cull 1000000000000000000000000 people down to less than or more than 10 billion. There are too many unknowns, DUH!

Got it now? DUH!

And can you now see how irrational, unscientific and empty your rhetorical style of posting is. It is a DUMBO'S style, for folk who don't have a point, can't read properly and follow other people's points, and don't get to realize their own stupidity.

Wow see who claims i am illiterate .Like thats the funniest thing i have heard all day. Now to prove you the fool your mother gave birth to.
Clearly the Op was wrong in disputing these claims. But your use of pseudo statistics and maths in a front to debunk him makes you seem rather incompetent don't you think.Your calculations make no mention of errors or plausible fallacies, this my friend shows lack of critical thinking.I am not surprised as your ilk seem to have this in common. Dont act like you know when you know nothing. Stick to your fiction. And when did the bible become a credible source of evidence in any logical argument? You sound so stupid, like take a step back and see the fool you made of yourself.

sinequanon:


Oh, so now we have moved from "two people" and "geography" and "conflict" to version 2 of your hypocrisy.

Now we are talking about homozygosity because "eve would have fvcked her sons".

Still we have no maths from you. What figure have you calculated that is less than 10 billion. Show us how.

How did you factor in your homozygosity. We are waiting for you to stop yapping, and to show us your maths.

[size=15pt]And by the way, there is no direct link between inbreeding and population depression. This is a bad misunderstanding. Many species reproduce asexually and are successful[/size]. There is no mathematical model that could predict that success of 6000 years.

Like i rest my case. You compared asexual to sexual reproduction not even taking into consideration that the method of transfer of traits or genetic coding in these two reproduction processes is soo diffrent. Like who in hell does that. I just feel sorry for whoever put their life's work to understanding these fields as their ideas have been skewed by a pseudo intellectual to defend a work of fiction.Like if you dont see how wrong that stand point was then i doubt you'll have mental capability to understand anything i have to say.Like you bleeped up you know that. I just feel so sorry for you.And you also stupidly commented about how there are no negative side effects of inbreeding. Like wooow keep revealing yourself. There are so many population studies done on mices and apes to monitor development of negative recessive traits as a product of inbreeding and chances ofsurvival. Pls kill yourself you are an example of the most disgusting faction of theists. The ones who skew scientific principles to support their fiction hoping to look like an intellectual.