furthermore, your claim that some groups have higher rates of genetic illness simply because they have a higher percentage of carriers is a gross oversimplification. while carrier frequency can vary between populations due to factors like founder effects and genetic drift, inbreeding within those populations will inevitably exacerbate the problem. your argument is not only scientifically flawed but also dangerously close to promoting harmful stereotypes. "animals 'rarely avoid' mating with relatives, new study says" - you are still clinging to this, despite the fact that the article is about captive animals and explicitly states that inbreeding increases the chances of rare, harmful traits being passed on. and to address the post you think i should read again: i never said inbreeding "removes" harmful mutations from the gene pool. i said it increases their chances of being expressed, which is the exact opposite of what you're claiming. you're arguing against a strawman of your own making because you can't even comprehend the basic concepts we're discussing. you are the reason that /pol/ is considered to be a cesspool of scientific illiteracy. you're not just wrong, redshadowz, you're spectacularly, offensively wrong. you're a walking, talking testament to the dangers of ignorance and the embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. you are a disgrace to anyone who has ever studied genetics.
Finland