RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 8:05:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
Or was the shooting part of the grand conspiracy?

Yes.



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 8:16:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
who did weird things in their temples (like worship a donkey's. head).

Do you have a reference for that? As far as I know the totem animal of the incarnate god of the Jews was not a donkey. I am intrigued.

Edited to add: I googled that a bit. I see. I had forgotten about the golden donkey.



thornhappy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 9:06:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Well, they were. They also have six times as many children born with lethal inherited diseases as European Christians. It is what you get when a population circumcises their male offspring.

Rule, several of us have been over this with you before.  It's got nothing to do with circumcision.  It has to do with marrying within a small population - the Amish and Mennonites have the same issues.

Muslim countries in the Middle East have a lot of inherited disease because of marriage between first cousins.



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 10:00:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Well, they were. They also have six times as many children born with lethal inherited diseases as European Christians. It is what you get when a population circumcises their male offspring.

Rule, several of us have been over this with you before.  It's got nothing to do with circumcision.  It has to do with marrying within a small population - the Amish and Mennonites have the same issues.

Muslim countries in the Middle East have a lot of inherited disease because of marriage between first cousins.

Nonsense. First cousin marriages are a - perhaps already genetically programmed instinctual - proclivity to remove recessive deleterious homozygously lethal mutations from the contaminated gene pool. (It works the other way as well: the infrequent recessive beneficial mutations in this way are distilled, preventing them from being lost due to genetic drift and may get the opportunity to further mutate into dominant traits.)

If it is indeed already an instinctual proclivity rather than a cultural proclivity, then such populations are doomed to never be set free from the genetic and morality curses on their populations.

Take a stack of red cards. Hearts is female and diamonds are male. Red equals good genes.
Deal the cards: when a diamond meets a heart they may have progeny: either one heart, one diamond or two half hearts/half diamonds. Now have cousins marry. The offspring still are red cards, have good genes. The frequency of hearts and diamonds in the stack of cards does not change appreciably.

Now put in some clubs and spades: black cards, recessive bad genes; but we stipulate that these are not homozygously lethal. Deal them. Again the frequency of the cards in the stack will not change whether or not there are first cousin marriages.

Now stipulate that the black cards are homozygously lethal mutations. In the play that has no first cousin marriages, the black cards will disperse and rarely meet up. In the play that has first cousin marriages, half of the black cards will be removed from the stack (the lethal homozygous pair; the other half will be in the heterozygous offspring).

Now add to each stack (first cousin marriages and no first cousin marriages) before dealing a new generation plenty more black cards and take out as many red cards. The stack with no first cousin marriages will eventually with the generations turn all black. The stack with first cousin marriages will still have some red cards when the other stack is all black.

Those stacks above were Jewish stacks following two different reproductive strategies: no first cousin marriages and first cousin marriages.

Now take a Christian stack of cards. Put in as many black cards at each generation dealt as in the Jewish stacks. (Spontaneous deleterious mutations do not distinguish between populations, they occur at the same frequency.) There are no first cousin marriages in this Christian stack, yet the frequency of black cards in the stack is reduced with each generation to a level that is much lower than in the first cousin marriages Jewish stack. Can you explain that? I can.




DomKen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 11:01:09 PM)

Rule, you bigotry is showing.

Close relatives reproducing will cause otherwise exceedingly rare genetic mutations to be expressed. This includes the lethal diseases quite common in many closely bred groups. It has nothing what so ever to do with circumcision. As a matter of fact if your claim was even remotely true the US male population, almost exclusively fully circumcised, would be having far higher rates of the diseases in question than the European Jews who generally receive less extensive circumcisions.



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 11:24:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Rule, you bigotry is showing.

What bigotry?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Close relatives reproducing will cause otherwise exceedingly rare genetic mutations to be expressed. This includes the lethal diseases

That is what I said. Not so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
lethal diseases quite common in many closely bred groups.

This is where you go wrong and put the cart before the horse. Merely apply the evolution algorithm: any behavior that causes a disadvantageous reproductive effect, will be selected against by natural selection. The fact that these populations that are cursed with deleterious mutations are inbreeding, indicates conclusively that by not doing so they would be even worse off. They derive a huge reproductive benefit from inbreeding and it is quite obvious what that benefit is: the elimination of half of the deleterious alleles from their gene pool. Nevertheless that does not suffice to cleanse their gene pool, as compared to European Christian populations that do not circumcise their male offspring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It has nothing what so ever to do with circumcision.

And you know this how? Perhaps you know this in the same way as those quaint people from centuries past that knew that the Earth was flat? Perchance you are a phrenologist with a "I cannot prove it, but I am right" bump on his skull?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As a matter of fact if your claim was even remotely true the US male population, almost exclusively fully circumcised, would be having far higher rates of the diseases in question than the European Jews who generally receive less extensive circumcisions.

Pff. Read my earlier post: "I predict that in two centuries time..." Come back to me two hundred years from now with that remark - I predict that you will then eat your words.

Edited to add: I notice that some politically correct mod who does not know anything about science nor about population genetics and evolution theory has made the criminal mistake of censoring my earlier post. Please put back my earlier post, mod. Do not censor that which you do not understand.



DomKen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 12:28:42 AM)

You are applying an exceedingly naive approach to population genetics.

You are simply ignoring the carrier issue. For every offspring that receives two copies of the lethal mutation there are, on average, 2 siblings with only one copy of the gene. If those siblings breed in a population with a great deal of variability then it is exceedingly unlikely that they will happen to mate with another carrier and therefore half their offspring will continue to silently, or nearly silently, carry the recessive. However the more closely bred a population is the more likely it becomes that 2 carriers of the same lethal recessive will mate but since half their children will be carriers and only 1 in 4 of their children will die from getting the reinforced mutation there is only very weak selection against the lethal mutation.

For a lethal recessive to be effeciently removed from the gene pool the heterozygous condition must have a negative effect on survival. Which is very rare.



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 12:49:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You are applying an exceedingly naive approach to population genetics.

No, I am applying the only correct rules of population genetics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
You are simply ignoring the carrier issue. For every offspring that receives two copies of the lethal mutation there are, on average, 2 siblings with only one copy of the gene.

That is precisely what I said in my example with the stacks of cards. Have you not read that post or do you intentionally try to bore me to death? Please do not bore me with that kindergarten stuff that I have already mentioned myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If those siblings breed in a population with a great deal of variability then it is exceedingly unlikely that they will happen to mate with another carrier and therefore half their offspring will continue to silently, or nearly silently, carry the recessive.

That is also what I said in my example with the cards. Obviously you have not read that my post. Perhaps you ought to read my posts before posting exactly what I already posted before you make your posts?

(It is true that I did not yet post the part that I made bold in the above post - but I fully intended to do so in a later post.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
However the more closely bred a population is the more likely it becomes that 2 carriers of the same lethal recessive will mate

Yeah, yeah. I already implicated this in my example with the cards post. Could you please not repeat me and say something original instead?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
since half their children will be carriers and only 1 in 4 of their children will die from getting the reinforced mutation there is only very weak selection against the lethal mutation.

1 in 4 is a weak selection? Are you quite sure about that? Especially as it concerns not 1 in 4 of the deleterious alleles, but two in four (= half). Anything with a higher frequency than 1 in a thousand is an extremely strong selection! 1 in 2 is a humongously immense gargantuan gigantic selection. Who are you trying to fool?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
For a lethal recessive to be efficiently removed from the gene pool the heterozygous condition must have a negative effect on survival. Which is very rare.

Both of these your statements are not true.




Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 1:40:40 AM)

I notice that you are not replying to any of my questions, DomKen. Nor do you have the courtesy to confirm that I am correct in every one of my statements.



Moonhead -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 4:57:09 AM)

You don't appear to be correct in your statement that circumcision causes inherited diseases.



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 7:02:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
You don't appear to be correct in your statement that circumcision causes inherited diseases.

I haven't made such a statement in this thread. (See? This is what you get when a mod censors a post that it does not comprehend. People that think that you said something that you did not. Even I cannot recall exactly what I said in my censored post.)

This much verifiably remains of my statement, though (and it is the only thing any of us have to go on due to that overzealous mod): "It is what you get when a population circumcises their male offspring".

Do you anywhere in that my quoted statement see that I say that circumcision causes inherited diseases?

However, I do applaud you for being more cautious in your statement than thornhappy and DomKen were in their uninformed statements, Moonhead.

I quote myself from an earlier post in this thread: "(Spontaneous deleterious mutations do not distinguish between populations, they occur at the same frequency.)" I literally state here that the cause of inherited diseases are spontaneous deleterious mutations that in each population occur at the same frequency. Obviously circumcision does not cause such spontaneous mutations (otherwise they would not be spontaneous). I challenge any interested party to show me where I have ever said that deleterious mutations are caused by circumcision. It seems to me that I in this (and earlier) thread(s) have clearly stated what the cause of inherited diseases is: spontaneous mutations. I have no idea why some people cannot comprehend such a precise and unambiguous statement.

The evolutionary inevitable consequence in populations that are subject to sexually transmitted diseases that circumcise their male offspring, is that the frequency of deleterious alleles in their gene pool is not reduced as efficiently as in the European Christian population that does not circumcise their male offspring. As a result in such circumcising populations the incidence of inherited diseases after a number of generations will be higher than in the indigenous European Christian population.



kittinSol -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 8:03:40 AM)

And on this note: [sm=abducted.gif] .



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 8:25:40 AM)

Quite. [sm=alien.gif]



pahunkboy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 8:44:24 AM)

My adopted aunt was on  one of the last trains out of Germany when things went crazy.

She no longer will talk about it.

In the 80s she had a lot to say.

I should have listened closer.  



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 8:52:35 AM)

History is written by the victors. There is far more to WWII (and I) than meets the eye.

I agree with you, pahunkboy. My own research several years ago came up with similar information and my conclusion was: the guy was connected to the Rs.



DomKen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 9:38:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I notice that you are not replying to any of my questions, DomKen. Nor do you have the courtesy to confirm that I am correct in every one of my statements.

Why would I respond to your questions when they have no basis in reality?

For instance:
quote:

1 in 4 is a weak selection? Are you quite sure about that? Especially as it concerns not 1 in 4 of the deleterious alleles, but two in four (= half). Anything with a higher frequency than 1 in a thousand is an extremely strong selection! 1 in 2 is a humongously immense gargantuan gigantic selection. Who are you trying to fool?

Is nonsense. If you do not understand the basics of population genetics I can't see any way to communicate with you on this subject.

Just to illustrate the problem, the homozygous offspring of two heterozygous parents is always a 1 in 4 chance never 1 in 2. The 1 in 2 chance is for a heterozygous offspring. In almost all cases being heterozygous for a lethal recessive is completely neutral as far as selection is concerned. As a matter of fact everyone reading this is likely heterozygous for several lethal genetic diseases and are completely unaffected and unaware.

Now since one half of the offspring of a heterozygous couples offspring will heterozygously carry the gene and only another 1 in 4 will fail to reproduce it is actually nearly impossible for selection to remove the lethal recessive once it is established in the gene pool.

Otherwise the only way to completely remove a lethal recessive from the gene pool is if the heterozygous state is also selected against and that is very rare, as in only a handful of known lethal recessives out of the thousands known to exist. This is the case because in general our body can get on quite well with only making half as much of some protein. The cells involved simply spend more time making that protein which in most cases isn't noticeable.

The math supporting this is very well understood and the experimental data supports the math.



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 11:21:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Why would I respond to your questions when they have no basis in reality?

What makes you the arbiter of what reality is? Are you a supergenius?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
For instance:
quote:

1 in 4 is a weak selection? Are you quite sure about that? Especially as it concerns not 1 in 4 of the deleterious alleles, but two in four (= half). Anything with a higher frequency than 1 in a thousand is an extremely strong selection! 1 in 2 is a humongously immense gargantuan gigantic selection. Who are you trying to fool?

Is nonsense.

DomKen, I here asked two simple questions:
1. 1 in 4 is a weak selection?
2. Who are you trying to fool?

What is so difficult about answering those questions? For lack of an answer, I can only surmise that you do not have a clue what constitutes weak and what constitutes strong selection.

I even tried to help you by giving away the answer: "Anything with a higher frequency than 1 in a thousand is an extremely strong selection!"

In fact, in the evolution algorithm all selection frequencies, however infinitesimal, are additive and count. If there is a mutation that confers a 1 in one billion chance of being beneficial or deleterious, it will be selected for or against. All it requires are one billion of bacteria with such a mutation for the effect to present itself in one of them. (In truth in such cases other factors, like genetic drift, will be far more dominant, but nevertheless the infinitesimal selection frequency does count.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Just to illustrate the problem, the homozygous offspring of two heterozygous parents is always a 1 in 4 chance never 1 in 2. The 1 in 2 chance is for a heterozygous offspring.

That is precisely what I earlier said in my stacks of cards post. Who are you to say that I do not understand the basics of population genetics? Obviously I do, since you are merely repeating what I said earlier. You would do better to criticize your own reading comprehension rather than my grasp of population genetics, not so?

As an example of your failure to comprehend what I wrote I quote myself: "Especially as it concerns not 1 in 4 of the deleterious alleles, but two in four (= half)".

I am here not talking about the frequency of offspring homozygous for a deleterious (lethal) recessive mutation, but about the proportion of deleterious alleles removed on average from the gene pool of the progeny of two heterozygous parents. If a is the recessive homozygously lethal allele, then Aa x Aa will result in offspring with the combinations AA, Aa, Aa and aa. Total number of A alleles in the offspring = 4. Total number of a alleles in the offspring = 4. Death of the homozygously lethal recessive offspring removes two a alleles from the gene pool of the offspring. 2/4 means half of the recessive lethal genes are removed from the gene pool by marriages of heterozygous individuals.

Do I need to give you an abacus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
In almost all cases being heterozygous for a lethal recessive is completely neutral as far as selection is concerned."

Quite: as far as natural selection is concerned, I stipulate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
As a matter of fact everyone reading this is likely heterozygous for several lethal genetic diseases and are completely unaffected and unaware."

Nevertheless in an earlier post you said something far more true and far more percipient: "half their offspring will continue to silently, or nearly silently, carry the recessive". What is it, DomKen: silently or nearly silently? Make up your mind.

I will give you a hint: natural selection is not the only form of selection and in fact is insignificant compared to a far more powerful and far more discerning type of selection.

That you are not aware of the deleterious mutations that you yourself carry, does not mean that others are also not aware of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Now since one half of the offspring of a heterozygous couples offspring will heterozygously carry the gene and only another 1 in 4 will fail to reproduce it is actually nearly impossible for selection to remove the lethal recessive once it is established in the gene pool.

Here you pay the price for not confirming that my every statement is true. I ask you again to confirm this my statement: "Spontaneous deleterious mutations occur in all populations at the same frequency". (I am quite aware that arguments that disagree with that my statement may be raised, like spiritual and environmental and genetic arguments, but I propose to disregard such complications for the sake of a clear discussion.)

Therefore: Do you agree that new deleterious mutations occur in the same frequencies in populations that circumcise the penis of their male offspring and in the indigenous European Christian population? (If you disagree, then I will be most interested in learning from you why you think that the frequencies differ.)

If you do agree, then please do explain why indigenous European Christian populations are so much better at removing deleterious mutations from their gene pool that the frequency of lethal inherited diseases among them is six times lower than among Jews and Muslims, despite not using the Jewish method of inbreeding in order to remove half of the deleterious alleles from their gene pool. I know why this is, but I am most interested in your answer.

I will give you another hint: obviously, it is not impossible for selection to efficiently remove deleterious alleles from the gene pool. It is only impossible for Jewish populations to have selection do so. Why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Otherwise the only way to completely remove a lethal recessive from the gene pool is if the heterozygous state is also selected against and that is very rare, as in only a handful of known lethal recessives out of the thousands known to exist.

Nevertheless the indigenous Euopean Christian population manages to do so very well, and not only the lethal deleterious mutations. The data support that. Why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
This is the case because in general our body can get on quite well with only making half as much of some protein. The cells involved simply spend more time making that protein which in most cases isn't noticeable.

That does not mean that it does not count, nor does it mean that the deleterious proteins are not made and do not have some effect. (Like wasting energy and resources making a deleterious protein.)

Edited to add: DomKen, I know that you have made quite an effort to become knowledgeable about these matters. I admire and respect you for that.

However, merely knowing something does not a scientist make. In fact there are lots of scientists - 96 per cent - who have no clue who know lots of things and are quite smart, but who cannot discover something new even if it stood on their toes and hurt. Nor do I am very much impressed by the other four per cent.



DomKen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 11:34:24 AM)

The European christian population does not do a better job of removing lethal recessive mutations. The population is simply much much larger than the ones you are comparing it to so it is much rarer for 2 carriers to have offspring. If you understood population genetics this wouldn't be something you would even ask a question about.

I'll try to explain it in simple terms. Take two populations, one has 1000 members in each generation and the other other has 1 million. Introduce the same lethal recessive into both populations in a single individual. Even if mate selection is completely random in both populations, no need to restrict first cousin or sibling matings in either group, the odds are that the lethal recessive will be expressed far more frequently in the smaller population. Which is what happens in the Jewish community as well as in even more tightly bred groups like the amish and mennonites in the US.



Rule -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 12:01:37 PM)

DomKen, even after you answered I was still editing minor changes into my last post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The European christian population does not do a better job of removing lethal recessive mutations. The population is simply much much larger than the ones you are comparing it to so it is much rarer for 2 carriers to have offspring. If you understood population genetics this wouldn't be something you would even ask a question about.

On the contrary: I am quite aware of the effects of genetic drift on the gene pool of small versus large populations. I am not talking about genetic drift here. I am talking about reproductive strategies to efficiently or not efficiently remove deleterious alleles from the gene pools of populations; in particular recessive lethal alleles, as that simplifies the model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
I'll try to explain it in simple terms. Take two populations, one has 1000 members in each generation and the other other has 1 million. Introduce the same lethal recessive into both populations in a single individual.

You here demonstrate that you have not a clue what a frequency is. If you would simply confirm my statement that deleterious mutations occur in all populations at the same frequencies, you would not have exhibited such an erroneous example.

In the first population you have a frequency of the lethal recessive of 1 in two thousand if it is on an autosomal chromosome. In the other population you would have a frequency of the lethal recessive of one in two million if it is on an autosomal chromosome.

Whereas my statement predicts that the frequency of the new recessive mutation in both populations is the same: hence in the larger population there would be 999 heterozygous individuals. (One individual would have the mutation in both alleles and be either stillborn or die before reaching reproductive age.)

See the difference between your erroneous model and my correct model?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Even if mate selection is completely random in both populations, no need to restrict first cousin or sibling matings in either group, the odds are that the lethal recessive will be expressed far more frequently in the smaller population. Which is what happens in the Jewish community as well as in even more tightly bred groups like the amish and mennonites in the US.

You mean that the odds are that there will be more individuals born homozygous for the lethal gene in the small population than in the larger population. As I have shown, you are wrong, because you have no idea what a frequency is.

You really ought to study my stack of cards examples and sit down with a couple of such stacks of cards yourself and deal the generation hands. Do and see for yourself.

As for the Amish and Mennonites, those are not European Christians: most of them Jew imitators have fortunately emigrated to the USA. (I have read the relevant part of the Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia.)



Politesub53 -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/20/2010 12:19:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

You don't appear to be correct in your statement that circumcision causes inherited diseases.


He is never correct about much except in his own mind. Ken answered him quite clearly, and more than once.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125