Jump to content

Episodic Errors


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Molecules said:

Putting morality, and cultural preferences aside, there exist the pure genetic diseases. In pets, inbred pure breeds result in greater chance of recessive genetic disorders to be phenotypically presented. Genetic variety quells genetic expression of recessive genetic disorders. In humans, extremely sadly, genetically inbred  groups lead to increased risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders, such as dreaded Tay-Sachs Disease. I always thought it was potentially  found in Ashkenazi Jews, but also more closed genetic human groups like French-Canadians from the Louisiana bayou, and Pennsylvania Dutch Amish. Unnecessary lethal genetic diseases (forgive me for the use of this word) 'trump' any other reasoning for inbreeding. As Raj said, how about adding some mocha to the family latte. Genetic diversity means less genetic deformity.

There are couples ignorant of their genetic similarities. Distant cousins Kyra Sedgwick, and Kevin Bacon were introduced to each other by Henry Louis Gates, Jr on 'Finding Your Roots'. Talk about you '6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon'. 

i know quite a few families who ae from the Punjab. Muslim siblings want their children to marry in order to keep property in the family. Children from this community feature above average, numerically speaking, in special schools. Sikhs, however, go to great lengths to ensure potential brides and grooms are not in any way related. They tell me that in their home villages in India they have scholars who study family trees many generations back  to verify lack of consanguinity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think he said it, as an insult to French people. I think he said it, to point out how easy studying French would be, to someone who is French.

This was before Amy's transformation.  At this point in time (mid season four), she was still mostly the original Amy.  She didn't drink either, nor was she interested in sex, among other things.  Tho

On another note in the Johnny and Kaley hosted farewell when Kaley was speaking about all the happenings that occurred in Penny's apt. she failed to mention one big major scene ......when Leonard prop

Posted Images

23 hours ago, joyceraye said:

i know quite a few families who ae from the Punjab. Muslim siblings want their children to marry in order to keep property in the family. Children from this community feature above average, numerically speaking, in special schools. Sikhs, however, go to great lengths to ensure potential brides and grooms are not in any way related. They tell me that in their home villages in India they have scholars who study family trees many generations back  to verify lack of consanguinity. 

The saddest truism is, if not for cultural inbreeding, recessive genetic diseases, like Tay-Sachs, would not as prevalently exist. Evolution has greatly hidden the probability of 2 parents having the same  rare chromosomal abnormality producing sickened offspring. The odds increase with inbreeding. There are enough deadly diseases, humans need not add to the numbers, when they can simply be avoided. Avoiding planned inbreeding is an easy cure. Especially compared to the resultant potential horrors. Further, if intellect was so genetic, then the great minds of history would be replaced by their progeny. Perhaps, intellect also involves environmental influences. Raj seems more right.

Similarly, inbreeding in royal families produced recessive genetic diseases. You likely heard of the British royal family being called 'blue bloods', and perhaps seen the film 'The Madness o King George'. Inbreeding caused expression of recessive genes causing porphyria. The victims create blue urine. Similar inbreeding caused a recessive gene expression of a Hemophilia in the Russian royal family. Genetic purity defeats its purpose: it can eventually genetically destroy the family existence. Listen to Raj.

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chances of second cousins producing offspring with genetic diseases is, within statistical errors, the same as  unrelated strangers producing offspring with genetic diseases.   Generally, non-related individuals will produce a child with a genetic related birth defect 2%-4% of the time.  Second cousins will have have the same 3%-4% of the time.  The mean of the chances  indicate children from unrelated marriages are at a 3% (0.030) risk and those from second cousins are at a 3.5% (0.035) risk.  So there is nothing wrong with marrying or having children with your second cousin.  In the US, it is allowed, without restrictions, in every state.  

Numbers from here:  https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1851

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tensor said:

The chances of second cousins producing offspring with genetic diseases is, within statistical errors, the same as  unrelated strangers producing offspring with genetic diseases.   Generally, non-related individuals will produce a child with a genetic related birth defect 2%-4% of the time.  Second cousins will have have the same 3%-4% of the time.  The mean of the chances  indicate children from unrelated marriages are at a 3% (0.030) risk and those from second cousins are at a 3.5% (0.035) risk.  So there is nothing wrong with marrying or having children with your second cousin.  In the US, it is allowed, without restrictions, in every state.  

Numbers from here:  https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1851

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tensor said:

The chances of second cousins producing offspring with genetic diseases is, within statistical errors, the same as  unrelated strangers producing offspring with genetic diseases.   Generally, non-related individuals will produce a child with a genetic related birth defect 2%-4% of the time.  Second cousins will have have the same 3%-4% of the time.  The mean of the chances  indicate children from unrelated marriages are at a 3% (0.030) risk and those from second cousins are at a 3.5% (0.035) risk.  So there is nothing wrong with marrying or having children with your second cousin.  In the US, it is allowed, without restrictions, in every state.  

Numbers from here:  https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1851

With all respect, if your position was true, then genetic testing and counseling for diseases like Tay-Sachs would not be offered preconception to more highly suspect inbred groups like Ashkenazi Jews, French-Canadians of Quebec, Pennsylvania Dutch Amish, Cajun Louisianans, and not to others. 

Further, I went to your above referenced site. a footnote backed quote states.

"One billion people worldwide live in countries where marriage among relatives is common. Of this billion, one in three is married to a second cousin or closer relative or is the progeny of such a marriage.12 The frequency of genetic disorders among such children is around twice that in children of non-related parents.12".

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Molecules said:

With all respect, if your position was true, then genetic testing and counseling for diseases like Tay-Sachs would not be offered preconception to more highly suspect inbred groups like Ashkenazi Jews, French-Canadians of Quebec, Pennsylvania Dutch Amish, Cajun Louisianans, and not to others. 

Just show where the peered reviewed paper I provide is wrong, or provide a peer reviewed paper contradicting it. First cousins, yes, there is a significant statistical increase in genetic birth defects. But not in  second cousins.  Unless you can show us a peered reviewed paper that shows otherwise, it’s just your opinion. 

  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tensor said:

Just show where the peered reviewed paper I provide is wrong, or provide a peer reviewed paper contradicting it. First cousins, yes, there is a significant statistical increase in genetic birth defects. But not in  second cousins.  Unless you can show us a peered reviewed paper that shows otherwise, it’s just your opinion. 

I just posted a quote from your referenced article. It is the second paragraph contradicting your passage. With respect, it is your own opined reference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Molecules said:

I just posted a quote from your referenced article. It is the second paragraph contradicting your passage. With respect, it is your own opined reference. 

 I don’t see second cousins, or any statistical references in your quote. So I don’t see how it contradicts my contention that second cousins are as safe, statistically, as non-related people. 

  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tensor said:

 I don’t see second cousins, or any statistical references in your quote. So I don’t see how it contradicts my contention that second cousins are as safe, statistically, as non-related people. 

"One billion people worldwide live in countries where marriage among relatives is common. Of this billion, one in three is married to a second cousin or closer relative or is the progeny of such a marriage.12 The frequency of genetic disorders among such children is around twice that in children of non-related parents.12".   

 

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good, now break I down individually.  Never mind, I’ll do it for you: 
non-related.   2%-4%
second cousins  3.5%
first cousins.   7-8%
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tensor said:

Very good, now break I down individually.  Never mind, I’ll do it for you: 
non-related.   2%-4%
second cousins  3.5%
first cousins.   7-8%
 

 

Again, the 2nd paragraph of your quoted article states twice the frequency of genetic disorders in 2nd cousins (or closer) vs non-related parents. Doubling anything negative is very bad, and unnecessary for their children, and future familial generations. The risks are a personal decision, but the couple is also choosing for all future generations, as well. I can't find your referenced numbers with your posted web site. Your quoted stats do not provide context. For example, are the stats for recessive genes. I can't obtain more information from your quoted article link without joining some service. If you could send me the stats and accompanying text, I might better understand your point. Thanks, Molecules

 

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers are for children born with genetic defects.  Non-related individuals have a 2-4 percent chance of having such offspring.  Second cousins have a 3.5 percent chance.  First cousins have a 7-8 percent chance.  In other words, out of 100 children born,  unrelated individuals will have 96-98 health genetic children.  Second cousins will have 96-97 healthy genetic children. First cousins will have 92-93 healthy genetic children. 

  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tensor said:

Just show where the peered reviewed paper I provide is wrong, or provide a peer reviewed paper contradicting it. First cousins, yes, there is a significant statistical increase in genetic birth defects. But not in  second cousins.  Unless you can show us a peered reviewed paper that shows otherwise, it’s just your opinion. 

Respectfully, you already showed us a peer reviewed paper to refute your own contention. It is not just my contention, but also your provided fact. If you only read your referenced article past the 2nd paragraph, you too would have conceded your erroneous point without this 'back and forth' banter. Granted, this is your sandbox, as you previously pointed out to me,  and you but permit me to play in it, for the moment, but your argument contradicts your own point. 

14 hours ago, Tensor said:

The numbers are for children born with genetic defects.  Non-related individuals have a 2-4 percent chance of having such offspring.  Second cousins have a 3.5 percent chance.  First cousins have a 7-8 percent chance.  In other words, out of 100 children born,  unrelated individuals will have 96-98 health genetic children.  Second cousins will have 96-97 healthy genetic children. First cousins will have 92-93 healthy genetic children. 

More relevant to this argument are recessive gene disorders, than dominant gene disorders, not all genetic defects.  In dominant genotypic disorders, only one parent need carry the gene for phenotypic expression. In recessive disorders, both parents must possess the defective gene for expression. In a recessive gene disorder, if both parents possess the recessive gene (like Tay-Sachs), the chance of Tay-Sachs disease, and death by age 5 is 25%. No one wants that risk of their child dying needlessly. Further, if the 25% chance of brutal death is statistically avoided, there exists a 50% chance of their child surviving s a 'carrier'. Therefore, in a recessive gene disorder,  there is a 75% chance of passing the gene onto the future generation, and a 25% chance of a child born free of being a carrier of the disorder. Those are the important individual real stats. 25% chance of a disease free child, and a 75% chance of death, or perpetuating the disease., with each birth

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tensor said:

Very good, now break I down individually.  Never mind, I’ll do it for you: 
non-related.   2%-4%
second cousins  3.5%
first cousins.   7-8%
 

 

This is truly 'breaking it down individually'. More relevant to this argument are recessive gene disorders, than dominant gene disorders, not all genetic defects.  In dominant genotypic disorders, only one parent need carry the gene for phenotypic expression. In recessive disorders, both parents must possess the defective gene for expression. In a recessive gene disorder, if both parents possess the recessive gene (like Tay-Sachs), the chance of Tay-Sachs disease, and death by age 5 is 25%. No one wants that risk of their child dying needlessly. Further, if the 25% chance of brutal death is statistically avoided, there exists a 50% chance of their child surviving s a 'carrier'. Therefore, in a recessive gene disorder,  there is a 75% chance of passing the gene onto the future generation, and a 25% chance of a child born free of being a carrier of the disorder. Those are the important individual real stats. 25% chance of a disease free child, and a 75% chance of death, or perpetuating the disease., with each birth

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Molecules said:

Respectfully, you already showed us a peer reviewed paper to refute your own contention. It is not just my contention, but also your provided fact. If you only read your referenced article past the 2nd paragraph, you too would have conceded your erroneous point without this 'back and forth' banter. Granted, this is your sandbox, as you previously pointed out to me,  and you but permit me to play in it, for the moment, but your argument contradicts your own point. 

Actually pulling out one paragraph doesn't discredit my argument.  You still haven't refuted the actual numbers in that paper.  When can we expect that?  

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Molecules said:

More relevant to this argument are recessive gene disorders, than dominant gene disorders, not all genetic defects.  In dominant genotypic disorders, only one parent need carry the gene for phenotypic expression. In recessive disorders, both parents must possess the defective gene for expression. In a recessive gene disorder, if both parents possess the recessive gene (like Tay-Sachs), the chance of Tay-Sachs disease, and death by age 5 is 25%. No one wants that risk of their child dying needlessly. Further, if the 25% chance of brutal death is statistically avoided, there exists a 50% chance of their child surviving s a 'carrier'. Therefore, in a recessive gene disorder,  there is a 75% chance of passing the gene onto the future generation, and a 25% chance of a child born free of being a carrier of the disorder. Those are the important individual real stats. 25% chance of a disease free child, and a 75% chance of death, or perpetuating the disease., with each birth

Yes, that is basic genetics and those are the percentages for KNOWN carriers.  What are the percentages for a pair of unrelated individuals who don't know their genetic makeup?   In this case, there is a 2%-4% chance of genetic disease.  How about a pair of  second cousins, who don't know their genetic makeup?  In this case, it's a 3.5% chance of genetic disease.   A pair of  first cousins?   In this case, it's 7%-8%, double the unrelated couple, and also double the pair of second cousins.  Statistically, there is no difference between unrelated couples and a second cousin couple.  And you have yet to refute that.   Just show me where these numbers are wrong, and I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong.     

  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Tensor said:

Actually pulling out one paragraph doesn't discredit my argument.  You still haven't refuted the actual numbers in that paper.  When can we expect that?  

 

 

 

Yes, that is basic genetics and those are the percentages for KNOWN carriers.  What are the percentages for a pair of unrelated individuals who don't know their genetic makeup?   In this case, there is a 2%-4% chance of genetic disease.  How about a pair of  second cousins, who don't know their genetic makeup?  In this case, it's a 3.5% chance of genetic disease.   A pair of  first cousins?   In this case, it's 7%-8%, double the unrelated couple, and also double the pair of second cousins.  Statistically, there is no difference between unrelated couples and a second cousin couple.  And you have yet to refute that.   Just show me where these numbers are wrong, and I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong.     

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chucky said:

Agreed.

With respect, I only am allowed to currently play in your sand box at your whim. At any moment you may decide to ban me, or censor me (once again), or give me a warning (once again), or ban me forever.  Your logic is flawed. The issues only concern 2nd cousins or closer, not the general population. You  don't seem like yourself in your logic and writing skills. You seem more like someone else. Get me the full article you cited, and I will look it over. I refuse to register on the quoted site to simply read the full article. Don't add your own commentary to your posted numbers, just quote the section I am not allowed to see. Simply let the readers decide for themselves. This is a poor way to artificially boost this web site's views. Even peer reviewed journals create controversy  to simply goose readership. We are better than that. 

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
On 2/28/2021 at 3:48 PM, Molecules said:

With respect, I only am allowed to currently play in your sand box at your whim. At any moment you may decide to ban me, or censor me (once again), or give me a warning (once again), or ban me forever. 

 
Let me straighten you out on this right away.  I have nothing to do with deciding to ban you or to give you a warning or to remove something of yours from this forum.  As a moderator, I recuse myself from any and all decisions such as this, when I'm involved in the conversation.  I will simply report what I think should be reported and Tripper will look at it.  I may, if it's appropriate, temporarily hide it, if I feel it egregiously crossed the line.  But all that is passed on to the Admin of the site, for his decision.  And if you think Tripper is going to play favorites, he won't. He's unhidden several things that I hid.  It's his forum, and I still have to play by the rules.  

 

On 2/28/2021 at 3:48 PM, Molecules said:

Your logic is flawed. The issues only concern 2nd cousins or closer, not the general population. You  don't seem like yourself in your logic and writing skills. You seem more like someone else.

You implied that there was some major problem, genetically with second cousins having children.  My logic is simply that a 3.5% chance of genetic defects in the progeny of second cousins, was not statistically significant  compared to couples who might seemingly be unrelated (but could be distantly related), whose chance is between 2%-4%

 

On 2/28/2021 at 3:48 PM, Molecules said:

Get me the full article you cited, and I will look it over. I refuse to register on the quoted site to simply read the full article. 

Look, I gave you an article, you don't want to pay for, fine, but you can't use that as an excuse of not doing your own research.  You could find a different paper that would show the numbers I claimed were wrong.  Hell, you could find a newspaper report or magazine article. Have you even bothered to do that?  I don't think so, because in less than ten minutes, I found the following article from the UK National Health Service:

   https://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/resources/patient-information/genetics/consanguinity-web.pdf

 

On 2/28/2021 at 3:48 PM, Molecules said:

 Don't add your own commentary to your posted numbers, just quote the section I am not allowed to see. Simply let the readers decide for themselves. 

 

I've quoted the data from the section (actually a table) from the paper you don't want to pay for.  But, if you don't want my comments on it, here:   

 

Quote

 

The chance of genetic defects in children from the following couples:

Unrelated couples:       2-4%

Second Cousins:            3.5%

First cousins:                  7-8%  

 

Now I will put up one comment: note that first cousins double the chance of genetic defects, but second cousins fall within, but on the high end, of unrelated couples.  

 
Don't like that?  Here are the numbers, for genetic abnormalities, from the new link I included in this post:
 
Quote

 

What is the chance of having a child with severe abnormalities?

Unrelated parents have a risk of about 2 in 100 (2%) of having a child with an abnormality from birth, which can be severe/lethal.

Parents who are first cousins have an extra risk of about 3 in 100 (3%), giving them a total risk of about 5 in 100 (5%).

Parents who are first cousins once removed, or second cousins, have an additional risk of about 1 in 100 (1%) and a total risk of about 3 in 100 (3%).

If there is no family history of a recessive disorder, most children of first cousins and more distant relatives will be healthy – over 95 in 100 (95%).

 

Note that these percentages are even less than my original quoted percentage (different statistical methods probably).  

So I still maintain, based on statistical chances,  there is noting wrong with second cousins marrying, or having children. All fifty states, in the US, agree with me.

Now, feel free to provide something that shows these numbers are off.  

As for why certain populations (such as those of Jewish decent for Tay-Sachs) might be tested.  It's simply because even seemingly unrelated individuals (in that group) may be carriers, due to close inbreeding (first cousin or closer) farther back in time.  My wife and I have friends who are, to the best of their knowledge, unrelated.  Yet, all three of their children have the same genetic abnormality (one worse than the others).  

 

On 2/28/2021 at 3:48 PM, Molecules said:

 This is a poor way to artificially boost this web site's views. Even peer reviewed journals create controversy  to simply goose readership. We are better than that. 

 

LOL, goose the web sites views?  There's more activity in the games section, than there is in this topic.  I'm not trying to get views, just pointing out where your original contention that there was something wrong with second cousins having sex or having kids is incorrect, using actual numbers.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'll be cheeky about this one. This is a Cross Connection (as in  the 'Young Sheldon' Topic), not an Episodic Error. In the episode where Amy feigns illness to continue getting Sheldon's attention under false pretenses, Sheldon administers corporal punishment to Amy's bottom line. In the great Thanksgiving episode where Zak and Penny sign an annulment, Sheldon got all hands on. Sheldon swats Amy's  keister in appreciation, again, pubic ly . Sheldon is an equal opportunity swatter. We all know Sheldon loves symmetry, and order. Even when forced to be asymmetrical, Sheldon can not rest until minimal entropy is attempted. In this case, I propose Sheldon needed to set things right (and left), and equally spank each cheek. Sheldon swatted Amy's right cheek, with his right hand,  while Amy lay across his lap, and swatted Amy's left cheek, with his left hand, at Thanksgiving. A true Cross Connection (Cross buns with cross connections). "...While we're out together spanking cheek and cheek".

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

This entry kick's *ss. This is not an episodic error, but something Raj  might have mentioned, and commented.  In 2029 a comet named Apophis, in 2004, was thought to have a 2.7% chance of hitting Earth (currently not a threat) Next year Didymos (meaning twin) is a twin set of comets (the smaller orbiting around the larger) that will be passing near Earth. Because of its proximity to Earth, it will be part of the DART mission. The DART mission is to learn how to divert threatening comets in the future. from collision with Earth. In other words, they will learn to kick Didymos in the Epididymis. Should have worn a cup.

Edited by Molecules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An apple away keeps the doctor at bay. In the 1st season episode where Leonard presents a paper concerning a 4th state of mater, a super solid, Sheldon argues Sir Isaac Newton's anecdote of an apple falling on his head inspiring him to discover gravity's laws was not just an anecdote. Current thought argues Newton's apple concussion never occurred. Not only was the statement not an anecdote, but also a falsehood. Though the apple noggin is 'intoxicating', there are easier ways of trying to possibly discover apple sauce. Cross my heart and hope to die, 'stick a needle in my eye', as, in the name of science, Sir Isaac Newton did. No anecdote, Newton documented his optics experiment. Newton stuck a large needle between his eyeball and surrounding socket to prove vision distortion. The apple of his eye. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. Cross my heart and hope to die, stuck a needle in his eye. An apple concussed, seems so much tamer than 'Brain Salad Surgery', ELP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/1/2021 at 12:45 AM, Tensor said:
 
 
 
Let me straighten you out on this right away.  I have nothing to do with deciding to ban you or to give you a warning or to remove something of yours from this forum.  As a moderator, I recuse myself from any and all decisions such as this, when I'm involved in the conversation.  I will simply report what I think should be reported and Tripper will look at it.  I may, if it's appropriate, temporarily hide it, if I feel it egregiously crossed the line.  But all that is passed on to the Admin of the site, for his decision.  And if you think Tripper is going to play favorites, he won't. He's unhidden several things that I hid.  It's his forum, and I still have to play by the rules.  

 

You implied that there was some major problem, genetically with second cousins having children.  My logic is simply that a 3.5% chance of genetic defects in the progeny of second cousins, was not statistically significant  compared to couples who might seemingly be unrelated (but could be distantly related), whose chance is between 2%-4%

 

Look, I gave you an article, you don't want to pay for, fine, but you can't use that as an excuse of not doing your own research.  You could find a different paper that would show the numbers I claimed were wrong.  Hell, you could find a newspaper report or magazine article. Have you even bothered to do that?  I don't think so, because in less than ten minutes, I found the following article from the UK National Health Service:

   https://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/resources/patient-information/genetics/consanguinity-web.pdf

 

 

I've quoted the data from the section (actually a table) from the paper you don't want to pay for.  But, if you don't want my comments on it, here:   

 

Now I will put up one comment: note that first cousins double the chance of genetic defects, but second cousins fall within, but on the high end, of unrelated couples.  

 
Don't like that?  Here are the numbers, for genetic abnormalities, from the new link I included in this post:
 

Note that these percentages are even less than my original quoted percentage (different statistical methods probably).  

So I still maintain, based on statistical chances,  there is noting wrong with second cousins marrying, or having children. All fifty states, in the US, agree with me.

Now, feel free to provide something that shows these numbers are off.  

As for why certain populations (such as those of Jewish decent for Tay-Sachs) might be tested.  It's simply because even seemingly unrelated individuals (in that group) may be carriers, due to close inbreeding (first cousin or closer) farther back in time.  My wife and I have friends who are, to the best of their knowledge, unrelated.  Yet, all three of their children have the same genetic abnormality (one worse than the others).  

 

 

LOL, goose the web sites views?  There's more activity in the games section, than there is in this topic.  I'm not trying to get views, just pointing out where your original contention that there was something wrong with second cousins having sex or having kids is incorrect, using actual numbers.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

First, it saddens me that your friends have such horrible problems. Historic inbreeding is passed on to unsuspecting ;generations. I was waiting for an e-mail from your source, but it has not occurred. So, I will comment on each passage to hopefully clarify. 

What is the chance of having a child with severe abnormalities? Unrelated parents have a risk of about 2 in 100 (2%) of having a child with an abnormality from birth, which can be severe/lethal.


Parents who are first cousins have an extra risk of about 3 in 100 (3%), giving them a total risk of about 5 in 100 (5%). ((A 60% increase over unrelated couples concerning severe/lethal conditions))


Parents who are first cousins once removed, or second cousins, have an additional risk of about 1 in 100 (1%) and a total risk of about 3 in 100 (3%).((A 33% increase over unrelated couples concerning severe/lethal conditions))


If there is no family history of a recessive disorder, most children of first cousins and more distant relatives will be healthy – over 95 in 100 (95%).((A combined  5% chance of not severe/ not lethal conditions))

Edited by Molecules
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Everything is ducky with this one. I hope it quacks you up.  In the season 3 episode where Sheldon 'gallantly?' (as Sheldon said -'the hero always peeks') assists Penny. when she falls in the tub due to lack of whimsical adhesive ducks holding umbrellas, Sheldon explains his use of adhesive foul impersonating Gene Kelly (Singing in The Rain). The error is that in the first episode Penny uses the bathroom to shower. She would have seen the duckies beneath her feet, and seen their value first hand (or first foot).

Fun Fact: a group of adhesive ducks are also called (or duck called), a raft, or team, or paddling of ducks. Not to be confused with a paddle of platypus. While we're at it: a Crackle of Cockatoos, a Smack of Jelly Fish, a Bask of Crocodiles, a Mob of Kangaroos, a Wisdom of Wombats, and a Parliament of Barn Owls.

More importantly, Sheldon doesn't tell Penny she had already seen the ducks on that day. Extra bonus- When Sheldon is abruptly interrupted during his Civet Cat soliloquy of not being a true cat, He would have likely continued by saying the  male and female perianal glands are used in perfumes, and flavorings in sweets, imparting a buttery, caramel, or rum flavoring, also, as elephants poop Black Ivory Coffee, so do Civet cats poop Kopi Luwak (as much as $100 per cup, and $600 per pound). Think from where your perfume, sweets, or coffee came .As Raj would say, Holy Crap! That's the straight poop. Gives kiss my a** new meaning. No S**T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Whether you're funny, or horny, or just think you are, you'd  like this. In the episode where Howard, Bernadette, and Amy were having a dinner at a diner , and they debated whether Bernadette could fake a laugh over Howard's jokes, and then began to prove it, and abruptly stopped.  The writers should have then recreated the diner scene from when. "When Harry met Sally", where Sally faked an orgasm, and abruptly stopped. Rob Reiner had his mother turn to a waitress, and say, "I'll have what she's having." The writing staff should have offered the role to Rob Reiner's mother. If not, then someone like Amy, or Rachel Dratch, the original Debbie Downer'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fair warning: put your fingers in your ears for this one. Are you hearing me? Listen, Penny sounds awful rehearsing for Rent, yet can purr a Soft Kitty, even in a round with Sheldon, and can sing til she comes, til she comes with much gusto, with Sheldon, no less. It just doesn't sound right. You can't fix tone deaf. To paraphrase A great singer, 'You either got, or you haven't got 'tone''. I  think there was something wrong with her throat.

Edited by Molecules
class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.