Another unanswered flat earth question

  • 52 Replies
  • 7379 Views
*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2007, 08:35:52 AM »
Obviously God instructed Noah in how to create Bags of Holding.  He stored the animals in 'hammerspace' by using these.
OMG!

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64408
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2007, 08:37:44 AM »
Noah was way ahead of his time...
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2007, 08:46:53 AM »
Noah was way ahead of his time...

1,000,000d20 years ahead of his time!
OMG!

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2007, 08:48:42 AM »
Not neccesarilly.

Humans evolved in Africa, but that does not mean that they all stayed there. There were people that left and went over the land bridge into America at one point. How could they have been bred into the European mix? Are you saying that I am related to every single Native American if all of my ancestors (I can trace them back to the 1500s, so I know that they are not related to any Indians) have not married or had kids with Native Americans? I am not saying that the great majority of the world is not related, but there are at least a few people that are not related to any extent (the population of the Earth would have to have at least a few of these people, due to the sheer amount).

Also, "inbred" involves at least a mildly close relation. You can only really say that someone is "inbred" if their parents have "at least a couple cousins over" relationship. Beyond that, the genes that are passed on are barely, if at all, similar (unless by chance). The mere fact that all humans may have come from the same continent, and have all married eachother at one point or another does not mean that they are all inbred.

What do you mean not necessarily? Inbreeding would have had to occur at some point. Where humans evolved doesn't really matter, other than to say that inbreeding would have ceased among certain sects of humans that moved. It still occurred, and we are all still related to one another in some way.

And my point is that even if we do share that same Greatx20000 grandfather, it doesn't mean inbred in the least.

Quote
1. to breed (individuals of a closely related group) repeatedly. 

Quote
American Heritage Dictionary(ĭn'brē'dĭng) n.   
The breeding of related individuals within an isolated or a closed group of organisms or people. 


And you're saying that by sharing ancestors we're inbred? No. That is not stretching a definition, that is taking it completely out of context.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64408
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #34 on: August 03, 2007, 08:50:53 AM »
Noah was way ahead of his time...

1,000,000d20 years ahead of his time!

You know what the world needs? More Noahs
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #35 on: August 03, 2007, 08:54:41 AM »
Noah was way ahead of his time...

1,000,000d20 years ahead of his time!

You know what the world needs? More Noahs

Damn right!  Just imagine where we'd be now if we still had one Noah.
OMG!

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64408
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #36 on: August 03, 2007, 08:56:59 AM »
We'd all be learning how to swim, and thats an important life skill so we'd be very thankful to our modern day Noah
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2007, 02:51:25 PM »
You can't prove we're all inbred, but you can show that it must be true. For one thing, originally there would not have been enough human around to not inbreed when we first evolved.

?

narcberry

  • 5547
  • Reason > RET
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2007, 03:27:22 PM »
Obviously God instructed Noah in how to create Bags of Holding.  He stored the animals in 'hammerspace' by using these.

Noah was way ahead of his time...

1,000,000d20 years ahead of his time!

How did I miss these?

*

Durdan

  • 102
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2007, 09:57:06 AM »

The sun is roughly 1.4 million kilometers in diameter and the moon is around 1/4th of the earths according to numerous sites.

and according to numerous sites, osama bin laden blew up new york, dianetics is a way of life and the rapture is coming on September 13th.
my sig was too big.

I am a mason who would like to learn more. enlighten me.

i am Option 8 incarnate

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2007, 02:56:09 PM »
And you're saying that by sharing ancestors we're inbred? No. That is not stretching a definition, that is taking it completely out of context.

inbred

"resulting from or involved in inbreeding."

Completely out of context.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

sokarul

  • 15840
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2007, 07:32:10 PM »

The sun is roughly 1.4 million kilometers in diameter and the moon is around 1/4th of the earths according to numerous sites.

and according to numerous sites, osama bin laden blew up new york, dianetics is a way of life and the rapture is coming on September 13th.

Ok I will play along, who blew up new york then? 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2007, 07:55:27 PM »
And you're saying that by sharing ancestors we're inbred? No. That is not stretching a definition, that is taking it completely out of context.

inbred

"resulting from or involved in inbreeding."

Completely out of context.
Let's try again.
Notation: Individual: Lineage + Unique ID + Generation Number, X = paired)
A1 X B1, C1 X D1 ==> (Two couples produce two offspring each)
ABE2 x CDF2, ABG2 X CDH2 ABI2 x CDJ2, ABK2 X CDL2==> (Four couples produce four offspring)
ABECDHM3, ABGCDKN3 (Two first cousins, no inbreeding); ABIABKO3, CDJCDLP4 (Both inbred, receiving genes twice from one or more ancestor)   

If an individual shares ancestors his or her mate, then the offspring produced are inbreed. Though the legal definition is usually limited to only two generations of ancestors.
A population of four unique individuals can create as large as desired population without inbreeding.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2007, 08:19:12 PM »
I wasn't talking about the math regarding it. The definition is clear, as I posted.

My original statement still stands: "inbreeding would have had to occur at some point."
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2007, 09:04:12 PM »
I wasn't talking about the math regarding it. The definition is clear, as I posted.

My original statement still stands: "inbreeding would have had to occur at some point."
Your assertion remains unsupported.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #45 on: August 04, 2007, 09:08:56 PM »
I wasn't talking about the math regarding it. The definition is clear, as I posted.

My original statement still stands: "inbreeding would have had to occur at some point."
Your assertion remains unsupported.

So you believe that nobody has ever been inbred before?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #46 on: August 04, 2007, 09:13:05 PM »
I wasn't talking about the math regarding it. The definition is clear, as I posted.

My original statement still stands: "inbreeding would have had to occur at some point."
Your assertion remains unsupported.

So you believe that nobody has ever been inbred before?
I believe you made an assertion that you've failed to support.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2007, 09:28:23 PM »
I believe you made an assertion that you've failed to support.

I made an assertion based on probabilities. That inbreeding would have had to occur at some point in history. That you'd even challenge that is strange.

I guess I'll go ahead and get support for my crazy assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200404/ai_n9363157

"Inbreeding has also been seen to occur frequently in many royal families' histories.  Royal incest was commonly found in Ancient Egyptian, Incan, Hawaiian, and many European royal families.  Brother-sister unions become more frequent when royalty is the major factor concerning the incidence of inbreeding.  There are several factors that can explain why royalty leads to high levels of inbreeding.  One factor is that the king has limitless power in many cultures, and he can do what he wants and marry who he wants.  Also, in many cases inbreeding is practiced in royal families to preserve royal blood lines.  Another explanation is that a royal family can keep land, material possessions and resources within the family.  Moreover, brother-sister royal incest allows succession of the throne to both a male and female blood line.  There are also cases in which royal incest is part of a culture and is sometimes linked to legends or myths.  One of the best documented cases of this was seen in the Incan culture in the 16th century.  The Incan king was to marry his full sister.  This was done to emulate the king's mythical ancestor, the Sun, who married his sister, the Moon, and this was thought to preserve the purity of the divine royal blood line (Van Den Berghe 1980). "
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2007, 09:39:48 PM »
I believe you made an assertion that you've failed to support.

I made an assertion based on probabilities. That inbreeding would have had to occur at some point in history. That you'd even challenge that is strange.

I guess I'll go ahead and get support for my crazy assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200404/ai_n9363157

"Inbreeding has also been seen to occur frequently in many royal families' histories.  Royal incest was commonly found in Ancient Egyptian, Incan, Hawaiian, and many European royal families.  Brother-sister unions become more frequent when royalty is the major factor concerning the incidence of inbreeding.  There are several factors that can explain why royalty leads to high levels of inbreeding.  One factor is that the king has limitless power in many cultures, and he can do what he wants and marry who he wants.  Also, in many cases inbreeding is practiced in royal families to preserve royal blood lines.  Another explanation is that a royal family can keep land, material possessions and resources within the family.  Moreover, brother-sister royal incest allows succession of the throne to both a male and female blood line.  There are also cases in which royal incest is part of a culture and is sometimes linked to legends or myths.  One of the best documented cases of this was seen in the Incan culture in the 16th century.  The Incan king was to marry his full sister.  This was done to emulate the king's mythical ancestor, the Sun, who married his sister, the Moon, and this was thought to preserve the purity of the divine royal blood line (Van Den Berghe 1980). "

That's 99.9% correct. You just need to realize that stating that inbreeding must have occurred is much more than stating the inbreeding has, or in all reasonable probability has, occurred. You're correct with the latter and on shaky grounds on the former.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2007, 09:47:19 PM »
That's 99.9% correct. You just need to realize that stating that inbreeding must have occurred is much more than stating the inbreeding has, or in all reasonable probability has, occurred. You're correct with the latter and on shaky grounds on the former.

Well, I will say that the tense that I was originally arguing with Ulrich was a little misleading, as it kind of changed. Just developed in a strange way I guess.

I live by probabilities, and make assertions through them as well. Statistically, as you pointed out, if there were four unique humans, it's possible that they could have avoided any inbreeding, but I see that as unlikely. Of course I have no direct evidence to support my claim in that regard, I could certainly justify my position.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #50 on: August 05, 2007, 01:52:38 AM »
Ok I will play along, who blew up new york then? 

When did New York blow up?!?  Has CNN been alerted?  :o
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #51 on: August 05, 2007, 04:26:39 AM »
Logically we are all inbred at some far away point in our ancestery. But inbreeding doesn't become a problem unless you repeatedly do it, through the generations. Which is why the pecies survived it.

?

Fokakya

Re: Another unanswered flat earth question
« Reply #52 on: August 08, 2007, 02:24:47 AM »
You can't prove we're all inbred, but you can show that it must be true. For one thing, originally there would not have been enough human around to not inbreed when we first evolved.

Do you understand evolution at all? It's not like at some point a few animals suddenly evolved into humans and then those humans had to interbreed in order to increase their numbers.

Humanity evolved as a species, an entire species. Throughout the evolution process there would always be significant numbers of the animals that eventually became us and therefore a significant amount of genetic variance.

There is no reason, whatsoever, to believe that homo sapiens came from a single genetic stock that inbred itself to 6 billion strong. If that were somehow the case then we would be even stupider and more disease-ridden than we already are.