> "99.9% of your genes are homozygous, retard. the reason inbreeding is le bad is because if you carry a genetic disease, there is a 50% chance your sibling does too. and if you're both carriers, then you have a 25% chance of your child having that disease." you're spouting bullshit statistics again, you fucking moron. the vast majority of the human genome is non-coding, meaning it doesn't code for proteins and therefore doesn't have a concept of "homozygous" or "heterozygous" in the way you're implying. and even in coding regions, while many genes have a common, functional variant that is homozygous in most people, there's still significant variation. you're trying to use a meaningless statistic to downplay the importance of heterozygosity for the alleles that do matter, especially when it comes to harmful recessive traits. also, there is not a 50% chance that a sibling is a carrier. there is a 50% chance that a sibling will also be a carrier if the parents are both carriers. if both parents are carriers, there is a 25% chance for each child to have that disease, but it's not the chance of disease that increases with inbreeding, but the chance of being a carrier. you are mixing up probabilities, which is a sign of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. > "but again, this only matters if you are the carrier of a disease. outbreeding doesn't remove any negative trait. it only spreads them out." yes, you fucking imbecile, it "only matters" if you're a carrier of a disease - a disease that is more likely to be expressed if you inbreed. that's the entire fucking point! outbreeding doesn't "remove" negative traits in the sense of magically erasing them from the gene pool, but it reduces the likelihood of them being expressed as harmful phenotypes. it's about reducing the chances of individuals suffering from genetic disorders. you're so obsessed with your "cleansing" fantasy that you're ignoring the actual consequences for real people.
Finland