Originally posted by GinRoseThat would be double first cousins marrying.
What's a "double-cousin " marriage?
From wiki:
Double first cousins arise when two siblings reproduce with another set of siblings and the resulting children are related to each other through both parents' families. Double first cousins share both sets of grandparents in common and have a higher degree of consanguinity than ordinary first cousins.
Originally posted by no1marauder...and this is probably going to happen in 27.5% of the relationships on average, given that 55% of Pakistanis in England marry their first cousin!
That would be double first cousins marrying.
From wiki:
Double first cousins arise when two siblings reproduce with another set of siblings and the resulting children are related to each other through both parents' families. Double first cousins share both sets of grandparents in common and have a higher degree of consanguinity than ordinary first cousins.
Originally posted by orfeoWhat's the point? Point is that we now know the potentially harmful effects in inter-breeding, and yet some sections of the population still actively chose to do it.
Would you care to speculate on what the percentage was back in the bad old days of Shakespeare and Newton?
The high incidence of interbreeding in america probably explains how Bush got re-elected.
Originally posted by howardgeeGore and Kerry explain how Bush got elected and re-elected. Plus the fact that about 50% of the people here were tired of having a president kissing up to the UN and the rest of the world.
What's the point? Point is that we now know the potentially harmful effects in inter-breeding, and yet some sections of the population still actively chose to do it.
The high incidence of interbreeding in america probably explains how Bush got re-elected.
Originally posted by howardgeeThe point is that the kind of terrorism we are discussing appears to be a fairly recent phenomenon (the last few decades), and if you're going to attribute it to inbreeding I would expect the increase in terrorist activity to have some correlation to an increase in the rate of inbreeding.
What's the point? Point is that we now know the potentially harmful effects in inter-breeding, and yet some sections of the population still actively chose to do it.
The high incidence of interbreeding in america probably explains how Bush got re-elected.
Originally posted by howardgeeUnfair, coming from a bloke on an island that only in the last 50 years has enjoyed some fresh blood! There's 300 million people in the U.S., and its exploding with diversity through immigration and native mobility. Britain? Pakistanis in their enclaves. Indians not even mixing with them. The old Anglo-Saxons bemoaning the glory days of the late 19th Century. And not a damn dentist in sight!
The high incidence of interbreeding in america probably explains how Bush got re-elected.
Originally posted by orfeomore likely a correlation to increases in international travel, media penetration, etc.
The point is that the kind of terrorism we are discussing appears to be a fairly recent phenomenon (the last few decades), and if you're going to attribute it to inbreeding I would expect the increase in terrorist activity to have some correlation to an increase in the rate of inbreeding.
suppose D. B. Cooper had performed his hijacking in 2002 instead of 1972? would 9/11 have occurred several years later than 2001?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper
[Why do the West Coasters keep coming back with wikipedia? It's been proven to be rife with inaccuracies. People have laid little eggs all over it in sophomoric glee, guessing (correctly) that some lazy geeks will quote away like its intellectual manna from heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._B._Cooper[/b]
Originally posted by avantguardcopied from the is-this-a-wikipedia-forum? thread:
Why do the West Coasters keep coming back with wikipedia? It's been proven to be rife with inaccuracies. People have laid little eggs all over it in sophomoric glee, guessing (correctly) that some lazy geeks will quote away like its intellectual manna from heaven.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
It is an excellent reference tool, but if you see something strange, look it up elsewhere. Generally it is a good start, but shouldn't be the stoping point of your research, espcially if it is controversial. It is comparable in accuracy to Britanica.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
And yes, I consider Nature to be a very valid source.
Basically use wikipedia just like you would any encyclopedia. Because of the size, there are bound to be mistakes, so don't trust in without question, but when you need a quick explanation of something without a long source, or you want to figure better things to google for, it is great.