Lydia again:
Well, basically it's not about "reducing any genes" at all, but about potentiating damaged genes. Because my dears, subspecies and ethnicities arise exactly because of this, the potentiation, in the broadest sense the inbreeding. I've already read a lot about it. There were already people in the FRG who claimed that if we didn't mix soon, we would perish from inbreeding. (laughs) Stupidity or political strategy?! In any case, this is wrong. Has anyone here read Darwin and Häckel, at least in part, what Darwin writes about the adaptation of species to habitats and how somatic modifications are inherited?! Animal husbandry... How did dog breeds come about?! Have you ever thought about it? You take a few individuals from a litter and cross them further, multiply them over generations, so that a number of traits are dominant and all individuals of this new subspecies share them.Breeding means de facto inbreeding. How can primitive peoples look so homogeneous? Because they are homogeneous at the cellular level and simply all descend from a few common ancestors. So again: when genes potentiate, characteristics are strengthened. However, since 50/50 of the chromosomes of each parent (genitor) always combine in a new being, damaged genes can also potentiate. This is the only danger in this. We are all descended from inbred products. In the thousands of years in which humanity knew nothing about genes and genetics, instinct and possibilities counted. I will quote here just from an article that summarizes the most important things: "Until recently, the worldwide research community assumed that love between siblings had predominantly disadvantages. Especially from a genetic point of view: children inherit two copies of each gene, one from the father and one from the mother.If a parent has mutated a hereditary disposition, the partner can usually compensate for this with a "healthy" copy. If the parents are related, however, the probability that the same genetic make-up is defective in them also increases. Accordingly, the offspring often inherits two defective copies. This effect can be observed, for example, in the coagulation disorder hemophilia, which mainly affected nobles due to inbreeding and is therefore also called the "disease of kings". The immune system also seems to be able to react more powerfully to new challenges the different the genetic makeup of the parents...... On the other hand, however, new theoretical work predicts that inbreeding can also bring advantages to sexual partners"... We could discuss it for a long time and there would still be a lot to say. The problem is that culture/civilization means a detachment of man from nature.Therein lies the real problem. In particular, the cancellation of selection. (This is exactly why most people today are dysfunctional and disharmonically built from birth, which then also appears to us as "ugly", as unaesthetic. There is no need for e.g. to be ectomorphic as a hunter, with long legs and extreme stamina. You can see a lot of people with long torsos and too short legs, e.g. Large hands are advantageous for primates, it doesn't matter to us anymore, etc.) All species except primates, hominids and guinea pigs can generate vitamin C from food. (mitochondria, ATP production). Those who can't absorb enough vitamin C (primates 5-8 g/day through plant food). Therefore, they are resistant to cancer, malignant cell mutations (tumors). ATP is the basic energy for all metabolic processes.(Read Dr. Ulrich Strunz or Prof. Kuklinski's book "Mitochondria"?!) We humans are degenerating through civilization, artificial lifestyle, micronutrient deficiencies and our industrial food. in the supermarket we are sold industrial waste, our pharmacy deliberately produces drugs that cause diseases in order to increase profits, the medical association is staffed with partisans of the pharmaceutical industry. These are facts. And it won't save us if we deliberately interracial for a few generations, because this development is taking place globally. We are at the most dangerous and disastrous stage of Western civilization, which is now world civilization. We Westerners infected all cultures of the earth with our way of life and we are now drowning from the problems we have created. How will e.g. the Internet and digital activities (today more students sit in front of notebooks in class than they write texts by hand, copy them, etc.) have an impact on the next generations? (There are masses of articles on this from recent times like this one:
https://www.zeitjung.de/gen-z-... l-media-has-to do with it/) Now the first results are available, short-sightedness, obesity, motor retardation, mental degeneration. (see e.g.:
https://www.spiegel.de/panoram... 46-46ec-ae47-fb58a0b09ab3) There are reports of insufficient motor skills in the Bundeswehr and even the US Army. Is likely to be a worldwide problem, especially in the industrialized countries at the top. (But unlike in Japan, for example, we don't regularly gather around in companies every day for 30 minutes of tai chi. Chi-Gong etc. We here, as extreme individualists, possess a liberal order, an aversion to collective action. That will never work So back to the topic, the problem lies in the alienation from nature and the increasing genetic damage. In medicine and anatomy, the rule is: use it or lose it. Since we no longer care for many things, certain genes are damaged and if individuals with the same genetic damage then come together sexually, it is more likely that offspring will emerge that not only have genetic defects (like all of us basically) but also somatic defects, i.e. are physically more or less "disabled". I.e. someone who cares about his society and wants healthy offspring should live accordingly. The masses, however, are not even aware of this and testify to good luck. And if you look around on the streets and compare bsw. Pictures of young people from 1880, 1920, 1960 with today, you will notice some differences, and this does not only apply to clothing and hairstyle. Always think about the process of speciation. How do species develop? A few individuals of a species interbreed and especially among animals the siblings cross. This is the only way to create subspecies and, in the long run, species, because subspecies or "races" are incipient species, evolutionarily speaking. Therefore, some species are still crossable today and not only subspecies. But what does e.g. the high genetic similarity of humans and primates or cats, etc.? (With a similarity of 96%-99%, depending on the method of calculation – the genomes of humans and great apes such as chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are almost identical. Domestic cats are much closer to humans on the basis of DNA matches (approx. 90%) than, for example, dogs (82%), rats (69%) and mice (67%). Are we all descended from the same ancestors? I can't answer that clearly, but I personally think certain gene structures turned out to be successful and that's why we still find these genetic matches today. It is a mistake to say "nature/evolution" does this or that. That would make as much sense as saying "The acceleration of the car goes to the next restaurant and orders a coffee there". Nature is a term for the biosphere, the totality of all life forms. The latter has no more consciousness and a unified will than a people. Otherwise, everyone would think and want the same thing. So the question is: what is behind nature, what or which entity directs it, experiments with it?! The encyclopedists and Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century had only one goal: to overcome God and religion. (see e.g. Albert Camus and A. de Tocqueville's Studies on the French. Revolution!) Therefore, natural law scholars such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau always speak in the style: "nature wants/does this..." Darwin adopted this. Rousseau, Erasmus Darwin and Charles Darwin already had the conviction of man's descent from apes before they presented any evidence and constructed their teachings. (Alfred Russel Wallace, on the other hand, was a field researcher, lived in the tropics for a long time, but was not a materialist either. His doctrine just doesn't fit the materialism of the 19th century, so they don't spread it.) On closer inspection, much is pure ideology and nonsense. What is correct is the ability of all species to modify and the inheritance of long-term acquired as well as randomly occurring characteristics. But who tells us that "random" mutations are really random? We don't even understand what natural laws are and when they came into force. (Read Rupert Sheldrake's "Memory of Nature") By the way, I was studying medicine. However, this is not the topic here. It is important not to simply parrot what the masses say. You always have to pay attention to who puts forward the theses and whether there are a large number of sources and indications or just a single source. Finally, I do not want to step on anyone's toes personally with my statements.
