In the beginning people probably were smarter than today, and were aware that the only way to live a safe life in a promiscuous society was to marry and have sex only to proper sister, this way people were made born in couples male and female twins, and form the start raedy to have a real and safe sex partner.

If you think any kind of animals is living a very good life becouse they do couple between brotehrs and sisters.

When religion come, people were forbidden to marry between brother and sister, allowing by this to expose evry intelligent people to marry absolutely unknown other people's children.

The theory consist in this short argumentation of facts, there are huge masses of assholes today, and perverts who are living on earth, maybe it was possible to avoid this, by letting smartest people to marry their own sisters.

At least intelliegnt people would never had to experience sudden death becouse of betrayal of theor spouses.

Th emost interesting part of this conspiracy theory, is thta people are allredy so much brainwashed after 2000 years, that it is almost impossible for th eaverage joe to imagine seriusly having sex and marrying his own sister.

My personal theory consist tht ait was the only way to keep living safe and continue to resist form falling th evictim of the conspiracy of the perverts.

There is a natural hint, which consists on wimen having a tube capable giving birth to both children female and male twins.

Try to imagine your parents born safe toghether as brother and sister, and then giving birth to you and your sister ready to marry and continue yoyr riskfree existence from meeting a jewish bitch that would fuck your brains up and make you an asshole slave you and your children.

Your 'theory', is completely retarded. Not surprising though, all of these, "when religion appeared it screwed up humanity", people are complete retards.

Your theory is not without merit. I assume that fact, because I myself could not detect any myself, however, lower life forms may be able to help you on that account.

Good day to you sir.

Inbreeding = tons of genetic problems.
Bad idea.

Inbreeding = tons of genetic problems.
Bad idea.



Were the genetic problems there when relatives from the middle ages reproduced??

Were the genetic problems there when relatives from the middle ages reproduced??

Yes...

Look at fucking dalmations, and then tell me inbreeding doesn't cause problems.

Science disagrees with your proposition emc3. The problem with inbreeding is that normally rare and harmful recessive genes are proliferated through interfamilial breeding. As area 51 said, just look at dalmatians, or just about any other purebred dog. Many are at a one in four chance for receiving such traits as deafness, blindness, and muscle deformity, among others. And if you care to see a human example, just look at Carlos II of Spain. He was the final king in the Habsburg dynasty, a family in which a lot of incestuous relationships were brought to fruition through family tradition. He is the end result. Note that this result of incest was not only physically deformed, but suffered from mental retardation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Carlos_II.jpg

if there are so many genetic probs why do the royals and any aristocracy marry in the family. ok were not talking brother/sister but still you would think some problems would arise?

only thing i can muster is maybe they have all sorts of tests done, but yeah in medieval times maybe they were killed at birth if they were deformed and forgot about

Does anybody have real scientific proofs against inbreeding , or are you just the usual assholes saying useless bulllshit?

Show me the proof asshole, or go fuck yourself away.

good point

Let's say that there is a population of 100 people, 2 of whom have a recessive gene that causes some mental disorder. Both numbers have equal gender representation. If each of these people pairs up with another to make a male-female couple, there is a 1 in 50 chance that two people with the recessive gene get together. If this happens and they have a child, the child has a one in four chance of getting the recessive gene from both the mother and father. This makes the prevalence of the genetic condition very low, occurring only in .5% of children born in the non-incestuous population.

However, if people commonly practiced incest, it would be much more common event for the genetic defect to occur. Let's say that out of the above population, a single person with the recessive gene procreates with a person lacking it and has 2 children; each of these children have a 1 in 2 chance of receiving the recessive gene, making the chance of both receiving it 1 in 4. If instead of marrying outside the family, the siblings decide to have children of their own, their child has a 1 in 4 chance of acquiring the genetic defect, for a total probability of 1/16, or 6.25 percent. That is almost a 13 fold increase over the general population.

In short, incest merely magnifies the risk for severe genetic defects that occur relatively seldom in the general population.

Now that I've covered that...

Does anybody have real scientific proofs against inbreeding , or are you just the usual assholes saying useless bulllshit?

Show me the proof asshole, or go fuck yourself away.
Notice the double standard you set for yourself. While you say that others must provide scientific proof, you show none in your original post. All of the points you made were unreferenced and unsubstantiated historical references that may or may not be true, depending on what one want's to believe. To be specific, the points I find particularly questionable are as follows:

- Incestuous relationships result in opposite gender fraternal twins
- Animals practice incest and are happy because of it.
- Smart people used to marry their own sisters
- The downfall of incest coincided with the rise of Christianity (as opposed to being rejected in more ancient societies)
- Women are able to give birth to opposite gender fraternal twins because incest was the intended result.

Since I have showed you my proof through mathematics, would you care to substantiate these claims by showing your sources for the information you posted, as well as the scientific proof backing them up?

And I only ask this last question because I've been dying to know; is English your first language?

The reason most species don't fuck their relatives is called "ecological biodiversity" and it's REALLY important, and really worth looking up if you're interested in this.

So how hot is your sister?

So how hot is your sister?

Yes! Lol

Let's say that there is a population of 100 people, 2 of whom have a recessive gene that causes some mental disorder. Both numbers have equal gender representation. If each of these people pairs up with another to make a male-female couple, there is a 1 in 50 chance that two people with the recessive gene get together. If this happens and they have a child, the child has a one in four chance of getting the recessive gene from both the mother and father. This makes the prevalence of the genetic condition very low, occurring only in .5% of children born in the non-incestuous population.

However, if people commonly practiced incest, it would be much more common event for the genetic defect to occur. Let's say that out of the above population, a single person with the recessive gene procreates with a person lacking it and has 2 children; each of these children have a 1 in 2 chance of receiving the recessive gene, making the chance of both receiving it 1 in 4. If instead of marrying outside the family, the siblings decide to have children of their own, their child has a 1 in 4 chance of acquiring the genetic defect, for a total probability of 1/16, or 6.25 percent. That is almost a 13 fold increase over the general population.

In short, incest merely magnifies the risk for severe genetic defects that occur relatively seldom in the general population.

Now that I've covered that...


Notice the double standard you set for yourself. While you say that others must provide scientific proof, you show none in your original post. All of the points you made were unreferenced and unsubstantiated historical references that may or may not be true, depending on what one want's to believe. To be specific, the points I find particularly questionable are as follows:

- Incestuous relationships result in opposite gender fraternal twins
- Animals practice incest and are happy because of it.
- Smart people used to marry their own sisters
- The downfall of incest coincided with the rise of Christianity (as opposed to being rejected in more ancient societies)
- Women are able to give birth to opposite gender fraternal twins because incest was the intended result.

Since I have showed you my proof through mathematics, would you care to substantiate these claims by showing your sources for the information you posted, as well as the scientific proof backing them up?

And I only ask this last question because I've been dying to know; is English your first language?

English is not my first language. If it my help you whatewer.

What you showed me is not scientifical proof, but only a bunch of arguments, that serve as the start to open a scintifical debate, which is always based on aknowledge of scientifical data called facts, and the formulation of correct arguments based on these facts. That can be called only a premise for the debate, but 0not scientifical evidence, as any scientifical evidence is only obtainable through the discoveries of experimentation.

Historical data means shit, as it is not a precise science, but just a discipline.

Mathematics have nothing to do with this neither, as biological stiructures and systems are way more complex.

There are only facts and arguments based on facts, and if you do have a normal brain capable of logical thinking, you my be bale to give birth to a real scientifical thesis.


- Incestuous relationships result in opposite gender fraternal twins
- Animals practice incest and strong and have successeful living.
- Smart people used to marry their own sisters.
- The downfall of incest coincided with the rise of Christianity (as opposed to being rejected in more ancient societies)
- Women are able to give birth to opposite gender fraternal twins because incest was the intended result.


This is a list of biological evidence based on facts.

You have to add tht ait is well known that so many great people died becouse of their wives or housbabds conspiring against them.

According to all these facts put toghether, it is very logical to say that human condition is so much being fucked up by any sort of conspiracies and doctatorships, only becouse th enatural order people should live is naturallly concieved internal inbreding.

You might consider that peole were brianwashed for 2000 years thta it is abnormal to marry it's own twin or have sex with.

Becouse of it, even people who were born twins, are commanded to marry somebody else realy unknown.

If you consider that only humans are used to go crazy and kill other people without any logical reason, you will realise that any kind of social structure based on small self sufficent cells based on inbreeding is capable to preserve intelligent lifeforms from dying from conspiracy.

If a couple of twins are born in a family with crazy parents, they will become crazy too, and will obviusly not be a threat to others.

This way any family will be protecting only it's own family cell in a passive way.

This way all the socially dangerous element will be by their own and will cease their social power.

If you do have any other theories in order to stop the madness epidemy that is spreading allready for 2000 years, you are welkome to write it down below.

From my theoretical point of wiev, if I and all my relatices were married to rgeir twin, I would be sure to live for almost 100 year without fearing any kind of conspiracy capable to take me or my entire family down.

According to the natural law of natural selection and evolution, all crazy fucker would be constricted in their own madness.

We would be living without the fucking comunism or fascizm. Or oganized crime or terrorism. Or nay kind of global war.

animal makeup is nothing like humans, also if this happened etc bla bla not exactly human instinct is it, that the law of natural selection uyoiu punk, you punk.

falling for who you do in the romantic sense and breeding as you do in the other IS the function of natural selection but these days as theres much more to enticing the opposite sex into bed its the new rules

What you showed me is not scientifical proof, but only a bunch of arguments, that serve as the start to open a scintifical debate, which is always based on aknowledge of scientifical data called facts, and the formulation of correct arguments based on these facts. That can be called only a premise for the debate, but 0not scientifical evidence, as any scientifical evidence is only obtainable through the discoveries of experimentation.
I used math to demonstrate the fact that genetic disorders have a much more likely chance of occurring in a series of incestuous relationships than in non-incestuous relationships. That's a fact. Also, you're statement regarding math is entirely false. I was able to use probabilities to demonstrate my point. Allele frequencies and phenotypic frequencies can be calculated through Hardy-Weinberg equations. Even from the beginning, Gregor Mendel used the prototypical ratios from his pea plants to discover the idea of genes. Math is very prevalent in certain areas of genetics.

This is a list of biological evidence based on facts.
Your evidence is not biological and you have yet to provide a source for your facts, despite how I asked you to do so in my last post. Your claims, without something to verify them, are very tough to believe.

You have to add tht ait is well known that so many great people died becouse of their wives or housbabds conspiring against them.
Again, can you provide a source for this information? While I'm people have killed their spouses in the past, by no means have many people died that way, and by no means is it a common occurrence. Who was the last "great person" to die at the hands of their spouse? How many "great people" can you think of who died this way?

If you consider that only humans are used to go crazy and kill other people without any logical reason, you will realise that any kind of social structure based on small self sufficent cells based on inbreeding is capable to preserve intelligent lifeforms from dying from conspiracy.
Are you saying that people go crazy and kill others because there isn't any incest? This is beyond a leap of logic. It is completely unsupported and unsubstantiated. As I asked for with your other evidence, do you have anything to give me other than your word that would verify this as fact?

If a couple of twins are born in a family with crazy parents, they will become crazy too, and will obviusly not be a threat to others.
This is completely untrue. Children are born to clinically insane parents and don't become crazy because their parents were. A vast majority never go crazy at all. Insanity, though it seems to have genetic underpinnings, is largely caused by other means. Basically, people don't inherit insanity.

According to the natural law of natural selection and evolution, all crazy fucker would be constricted in their own madness.
Again, this is untrue. Natural Selection says that those best fitted to their environment survive.

Look, this argument is largely one of evolutionary processes and even more so, genetics. Do you have any comprehensive understanding of either of these concepts, because it doesn't seem like you're demonstrating it if you do.

And for your reading pleasure, here are these sites, explaining mathematically and in layman's terms why inbreeding/incest is bad for a species. The third article debunks your claim that animals practice inbreeding. On the contrary, they avoid it.

http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~whitlock/QGPG/QG4/Lecture.html
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/genetics/inbreeding.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88288.php

I used math to demonstrate the fact that genetic disorders have a much more likely chance of occurring in a series of incestuous relationships than in non-incestuous relationships. That's a fact. Also, you're statement regarding math is entirely false. I was able to use probabilities to demonstrate my point. Allele frequencies and phenotypic frequencies can be calculated through Hardy-Weinberg equations. Even from the beginning, Gregor Mendel used the prototypical ratios from his pea plants to discover the idea of genes. Math is very prevalent in certain areas of genetics.


Your evidence is not biological and you have yet to provide a source for your facts, despite how I asked you to do so in my last post. Your claims, without something to verify them, are very tough to believe.


Again, can you provide a source for this information? While I'm people have killed their spouses in the past, by no means have many people died that way, and by no means is it a common occurrence. Who was the last "great person" to die at the hands of their spouse? How many "great people" can you think of who died this way?


Are you saying that people go crazy and kill others because there isn't any incest? This is beyond a leap of logic. It is completely unsupported and unsubstantiated. As I asked for with your other evidence, do you have anything to give me other than your word that would verify this as fact?


This is completely untrue. Children are born to clinically insane parents and don't become crazy because their parents were. A vast majority never go crazy at all. Insanity, though it seems to have genetic underpinnings, is largely caused by other means. Basically, people don't inherit insanity.


Again, this is untrue. Natural Selection says that those best fitted to their environment survive.

Look, this argument is largely one of evolutionary processes and even more so, genetics. Do you have any comprehensive understanding of either of these concepts, because it doesn't seem like you're demonstrating it if you do.

And for your reading pleasure, here are these sites, explaining mathematically and in layman's terms why inbreeding/incest is bad for a species. The third article debunks your claim that animals practice inbreeding. On the contrary, they avoid it.

http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~whitlock/QGPG/QG4/Lecture.html
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/genetics/inbreeding.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88288.php

You are saying a lot of bullshit based on some lazy arguments, I allready told you it is useless in this case, it is not a lesson about biology, it is a conspiracy debate.

Genetics have nothing to do with this. Crazy parents will always have crazy children, becouse they fuck theor children's mind with heavy hypnosys, and not just becouse of genetics.

Any family that have sociall problems will always take their children down.

It is impossible tht ayou do not knwo shit about what is going on, you might be mentally retarded or schizofrenic withpout noticing it.

I repeat, th emajority of people in USA, and almost everybody in Russia are all fucking crazy, they do fuck theor children's brains, and in theor madness they think that it is something normal to do.

The only evident things thta peole observe are bitches, you do realise that if a child is born form a bitch, she will laways fuck ythe choldìs brain and the child will automatically become a branless bitch asshole.

Apaprt of this evident thing, there are othe rpeople who are doing the same to theor children, and they are in higher social positioins.

If you will start to repeat thta you do not knwo shit abpout what teh fuck is going on, I might assume thta you are a braindamaged person too and any further discussion is useless and mindless with you.

Anyway, according to your effort to use intelligence I do respect you, and in case you are one of those mentally fucked up children I am profoundly sorry for you.

Abyway, I do want to tell you again, that if you were studying in a school with other children, and were observing mass media, you must have noticed that even people who do look perfectly normal are missing a huge part of their metal capcities and are just obeying to someone elses sick will.

If I have to explain to you what the fuck is going on, you must be inside this shit yourself, as it is physically impossible that anybody mentally sane is oncapabel to figure it out by himslef.

What I am saying, that the only way possible to fuck up al people 's mind is exactly what the curch was trying to do for 2000 years, is external breeding.

It has nothing to do with biology, the only way possible to fuck peole's mind, is ot hypnotize them during sleep, and unless someone is mentally retarded, he would sleep only with his own wife.

Usilng logic, umanity i sfucked up only becouse any normal family is allready dmaged by marrying unknown popel.

Try to imagine your parents born safe toghether as brother and sister, and then giving birth to you and your sister ready to marry and continue yoyr riskfree existence from meeting a jewish bitch that would fuck your brains up and make you an asshole slave you and your children.

Your ex? Or present honey?

Why is incest better than selection of sex partner based on attraction? Haven't you noticed that people choose sex-partners based on positive benefits and based on complementary genetics. We are very much prisoners of our genes.

Were the genetic problems there when relatives from the middle ages reproduced??

Why yes, there were problems.

I lol'd when I saw some really long argument posts in this thread. I mean come on, threads don't get much more retarded than this one.

emc3, where did you find all of this information?

where did he learn to spell

The thread starter is pure genius and is obviously the superior product of consanguineous relationships.

The thread starter is pure genius and is obviously the superior product of consanguineous relationships.

Genius means a perfect (error free) intellectual product of human sane mind. This product is obviusly made of the combination of natural intelligence and knowledge.

If you do not posses the ability of producing intellectual perfect products, you must be a retaded asshole.

I am just a normal human being who is writing obvius things that do not require exesive intelligence or knowledge.

People who are defined geniuses are just normla people, who are able to understand obvius things faster than the masses of asholes.

Let's say that I am a normal human being, and you are an asshole.

LAWL

Sorry, not a definition of genius that I am familiar with. Exceptional intellect or skill, yes. Perfection, no. But I wont bother to argue with you - the rest of this thread shows it would be futile. (But rather amusing)

Heh, I wont deny that I can be an arsehole.

Does anyone recognise the immense irony of this individual's references to unrecognised schizophrenia and mental retardation? The arrogance and pretentiousness coupled with hilariously poor grammer/spelling and use of profanities in his great "theories" leaves me speachless...

This thread is fucking hilarious.

Face it, you just want to fuck your sister and feel the need to rationalize it :D

Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that incest is an exception to the empirically-demonstrated rules that govern allele frequencies. Two people with the same parents will have similar genetic makeup, including recessive genes that aren't so nice. You fuck a family member, your kid has a higher likelihood of getting two of those nasty recessive genes (resulting in your kid being fucked up) than if you fuck someone else, who doesn't have that particular nasty gene (although they could have a different bad gene, but that wouldn't matter unless you had it too). Basically, if you don't dilute your genetic problems by fucking someone who's not in your family you have a good chance of "concentrating" the nasty genes in a kid or two of yours.

Inbreeding = tons of genetic problems.
Bad idea.

he is right

Dude its ok to emulate exposo but its a shoddy conspiracy at best.

dude, this is the second time i see you write about incest shit.
do you really want to fuck your sister that badly???

Although I in no way agree with the OP, and believe that yes, you would pass on recessive 'bad' genes, you would also pass on the good traits as in selective breeding.

ex: say you're family had the genes for superior intellect(obviously not the OP), and you and your sis were 'geniuses', assuming the two of you bred, your children would also carry this gene.

Although I in no way agree with the OP, and believe that yes, you would pass on recessive 'bad' genes, you would also pass on the good traits as in selective breeding.

ex: say you're family had the genes for superior intellect(obviously not the OP), and you and your sis were 'geniuses', assuming the two of you bred, your children would also carry this gene.

the royals arre well known for selectivre marriages though i dont imagine them to be closely related