.png)
Basic Dimension
Disclaimer:
- Genetics and genealogy are serious professions with a lot of hidden rules which can change the calculations considerably.
- Genetics and genealogy are serious professions with a lot of hidden rules which can change the calculations considerably.
Chromosomes:
http://abri.une.edu.au/online/pages/inbreeding_coefficient_help.htm
http://abri.une.edu.au/online/pages/inbreeding_coefficient_help.htm
Explanation of inbreeding in animal populations relies on a few basic genetic principles. Genetic information is stored in Chromosomes. Chromosomes are made up of DNA. Genes are sections of DNA and occur in pairs. A particular gene will occur at a particular site (locus, plural is loci) in the DNA of a particular Chromosome. The different forms of a gene (usually 2) that can occur at that locus are called alleles. Where both alleles are the same at the locus, they are called homozygous. Where the alleles are different, they are called heterozygous. In general, the two alleles will have an equal influence on the performance of an animal. That is, the heterozygous form (both alleles are present) tends to have performance midway between the two homozygous forms. In a few cases, one allele will have the main (dominant) effect on an animal, while the other allele will only have an effect in its homozygous form. These are called dominant and recessive genes.
Coefficient of Inbreeding:
The Coefficient of Inbreeding (as proposed by Sewell Wright in 1922) is the probability that two alleles at a randomly chosen locus are identical by descent. Note that alleles may be identical for other reasons, but the inbreeding coefficient is just looking at the mathematical probability that the alleles have come from a common ancestor.
The Coefficient of Relationship (R) looks more a descriptive statistic of consanguinity relations within families. For example a father and his child have 50% of their genes in common. The same for two siblings. So it is not directly a probability for specific individual situations.
The Inbreeding Coefficient:
The Coefficient of Relationship:
The Coefficient of Relationship (R) looks more a descriptive statistic of consanguinity relations within families. For example a father and his child have 50% of their genes in common. The same for two siblings. So it is not directly a probability for specific individual situations.
Coeff. of Inbreeding versus Coeff. of Relatedness:
The Coefficient of Inbreeding (as proposed by Sewell Wright in 1922) is the probability that two alleles at a randomly chosen locus are identical by descent. Note that alleles may be identical for other reasons, but the inbreeding coefficient is just looking at the mathematical probability that the alleles have come from a common ancestor.
The Coefficient of Relationship (R) looks more a descriptive statistic of consanguinity relations within families. For example a father and his child have 50% of their genes in common. The same for two siblings. So it is not directly a probability for specific individual situations.
Brother-Sister Relationships:
Realize that brother-sister relationships have been common in the evolution. But those were random phenomena in general. What is devastating in inbreeding populations is the stacking of effects over many generations, so that the family genome is systematically impoverished and the group's chances of survival are undermined.
Autosomal disorders
Islam looks like an autosomal recessive disorder:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/autosomal-recessive-inheritance-pattern/img-20007457
To have an autosomal recessive disorder, you inherit two mutated genes, one from each parent. These disorders are usually passed on by two carriers. Their health is rarely affected, but they have one mutated gene (recessive gene) and one normal gene (dominant gene) for the condition. Two carriers have a 25 percent chance of having an unaffected child with two normal genes (left), a 50 percent chance of having an unaffected child who also is a carrier (middle), and a 25 percent chance of having an affected child with two recessive genes (right).
To have an autosomal recessive disorder, you inherit two mutated genes, one from each parent. These disorders are usually passed on by two carriers. Their health is rarely affected, but they have one mutated gene (recessive gene) and one normal gene (dominant gene) for the condition. Two carriers have a 25 percent chance of having an unaffected child with two normal genes (left), a 50 percent chance of having an unaffected child who also is a carrier (middle), and a 25 percent chance of having an affected child with two recessive genes (right).
Inbreeding is a malicious form of natural selection, which apparently has left deep scars on the Muslim population. The whole package of long lasting inbreeding terror likely has caused a large and similar to autosomal recessive disorder syndrome. This means at numerous places in the Muslim genome, there must have formed a pre-selection of homozygous alleles (rr), which are characteristic for inbreeding. In other words, RR has been removed and rr remains.
Religion is monotheistic male terror against females:
'Religion' as a means of controlling female sexuality develops into all directions because of magical derivatives: HR = f(SR). These have nothing rationally to do with breeding anymore, like Reincarnation in the example below (in which Eve was perfectly right):
Human Religion (Islam) started as a function of Sexual Religion (Inbreeding). The instinctive incentive was to stop autosomal recessive disorders by outcrossing. Just as happened for 14 million years since the first bipedal primates:
(237) Mount Toba gave birth to the Tree of Knowledge 🔴🔴
We therefore skipped the Tree of Knowledge for Australopithecus and Homo erectus and in the first case gave the Tree of Knowledge the meaning of treacherous adultery of Eve, adultery with the Serpent from another tribe, in which Eve also told Adam that the apple was his child:
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-3/
15 And I will put enmity between thee [the Serpent] and the woman [Eve], and between thy seed [your tribe] and her seed [her tribe]; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
So, before the arrival of Homo sapiens, tribal identity (inbreeding) was more important than preventing autosomal recessive disorders (outcrossing). Again, this does not mean that they could not die out from disorders, but this danger was not that prominently.
Assumption 555: The plausibility of an inbreeding instinct
1: Twenty million years ago, the first bipedal primates lived in mammal groups with the Alpha male, which practiced inbreeding. But females in the periphery of the group chose for outbreeding or genetic diversity.
2: The first bipedal Hominids from 14 to 7 million years ago were forced to inbreeding by the bipedal mutation, which made it difficult for them to get in touch with other groups. Sexual culture is controlled and sanctioned by 'religion' and therefore 'inbreeding and incest' became the first bipedal primate religion.
3: Because this condition has lasted 14 million years, we assume that inbreeding has become a Sexual Instinct controlled and sanctioned by "religion". If that instinct is not diluted by mixing with outbred populations, it will be retained in the genes of the inbred population, AKA Arab and Asian Muslims.
4: A religion exists for a few thousand years at the most, say a maximum of 5 thousand years. This means that the inbreeding culture of Muslims cannot be the same religion as that of the early bipedal primates. There is no cultural connection possible.
And that is the reason to suppose an inbreeding instinct, which is
permanently present in the genes of inbred populations and from which swells up every few thousand years a new inbreeding culture.
5: The implication of point 4 is that there is no guarantee of a meaningful religious evolution beyond the evolution of religious concepts as such, as reincarnation and resurrection, which is limited.
6: And that means Homo naledi could in principle have had more empathic religious depth than contemporary religions. So, according to this theory there is no reason to reject the burial rituals of Homo naledi, even if they did not believe in the soul or in reincarnation. They believed in the revival of their DNA, as a fetus with extended telomeres. Therefore, their graves needed an open connection to the outside world, without any gifts. With a soul graves were closed, with precious gifts. (289) Homo naledi: Inbreeding caused no mole behavior
7: So, inbreeding cultures come and go but have nothing in common. Their only connection is the eruption of the inbreeding instinct, dating from the first Hominids:
(289) Homo naledi: Inbreeding caused no mole behavior
But in this latest interview Prof. Dr. Lee Berger said that possibly Homo naledi could be our ancient ancestor. Thinking about that means Homo erectus delivered the body to Homo sapiens with the enlarged skull, but Homo naledi brought in the hands, wrists, feet and legs. So the most modern features came from Homo naledi and the psychotic brain from Homo erectus:
The reason science is wrong about Homo naledi's religious beliefs lies in retrospective research. This blog revives all religious stages prospectively and comes to fundamentally different conclusions. All religious choices from the bipedal evolution were made anew, which sometimes resulted in unexpected interactions.
But retrospectively, one digs a Neanderthal tomb from 100,000 years ago and concludes this must have been the beginning of bipedal religion. That's a joke and no science either ...
1: Twenty million years ago, the first bipedal primates lived in mammal groups with the Alpha male, which practiced inbreeding. But females in the periphery of the group chose for outbreeding or genetic diversity.
2: The first bipedal Hominids from 14 to 7 million years ago were forced to inbreeding by the bipedal mutation, which made it difficult for them to get in touch with other groups. Sexual culture is controlled and sanctioned by 'religion' and therefore 'inbreeding and incest' became the first bipedal primate religion.
3: Because this condition has lasted 14 million years, we assume that inbreeding has become a Sexual Instinct controlled and sanctioned by "religion". If that instinct is not diluted by mixing with outbred populations, it will be retained in the genes of the inbred population, AKA Arab and Asian Muslims.
4: A religion exists for a few thousand years at the most, say a maximum of 5 thousand years. This means that the inbreeding culture of Muslims cannot be the same religion as that of the early bipedal primates. There is no cultural connection possible.
And that is the reason to suppose an inbreeding instinct, which is
permanently present in the genes of inbred populations and from which swells up every few thousand years a new inbreeding culture.
5: The implication of point 4 is that there is no guarantee of a meaningful religious evolution beyond the evolution of religious concepts as such, as reincarnation and resurrection, which is limited.
7: So, inbreeding cultures come and go but have nothing in common. Their only connection is the eruption of the inbreeding instinct, dating from the first Hominids:
(289) Homo naledi: Inbreeding caused no mole behavior
But in this latest interview Prof. Dr. Lee Berger said that possibly Homo naledi could be our ancient ancestor. Thinking about that means Homo erectus delivered the body to Homo sapiens with the enlarged skull, but Homo naledi brought in the hands, wrists, feet and legs. So the most modern features came from Homo naledi and the psychotic brain from Homo erectus:
The reason science is wrong about Homo naledi's religious beliefs lies in retrospective research. This blog revives all religious stages prospectively and comes to fundamentally different conclusions. All religious choices from the bipedal evolution were made anew, which sometimes resulted in unexpected interactions.
But retrospectively, one digs a Neanderthal tomb from 100,000 years ago and concludes this must have been the beginning of bipedal religion. That's a joke and no science either ...
No comments:
Post a Comment