Youtube comments of Iain Mc (@iainmc9859).

  1. 29
  2. 28
  3. 25
  4. 23
  5. 23
  6. 23
  7. 21
  8. 19
  9. 19
  10. 18
  11. 18
  12. 18
  13. 16
  14. 15
  15. 13
  16. 13
  17. 13
  18. 13
  19. 12
  20. 11
  21. 11
  22. 10
  23. 10
  24. 10
  25. 10
  26. 9
  27. 8
  28. 8
  29. 8
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 8
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. Let me preface this by saying the bombing of Dresden in WWII was morally questionable. However my mother was 'bombed out' of homes three times by the Germans during the Second World War, watching the bones of her neighbours being carried out of their houses in their remaining clothing, eventually your patience wears thin. Although the drone/missile attacks on Russian territory may be no more than a matter of bringing home the cost of the war to ordinary Russians (not that Putin actually cares about ordinary Russians) it is a result of Ukraine's frustration with the Russian population's unwillingness to rein it its political leaders. Have no doubt, Ukraine is this century's Czechoslovakia. Those that support democracy have to accept that this is our war against totalitarianism. Moving defense production into Ukraine, for financial gain, into Russian strike range is simply commercial gain. Do that after Ukraine has removed Russian boots from their soil, when they are both part of the EU (economic market) and NATO (military confederation). Republicskis in the USA are using the argument that Europe is falling back on their tax dollars, when in reality it would be much cheaper for the USA to support democratic ideals in Europe rather than having to pour resources into eastern Europe over a longer period of time due to Russian military success. Spend less now in conventional weapons, USA and Europe, and create an effective buffer between you and any Dictator (South East Asia included).
    7
  36. 7
  37. 7
  38. 7
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 6
  44. 6
  45. 6
  46. 6
  47. 6
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 5
  51. 5
  52. 5
  53. 5
  54. 5
  55. 5
  56. 5
  57. 5
  58. 5
  59. 5
  60. 5
  61. 5
  62. 5
  63. 5
  64. 5
  65. 5
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. 4
  83. 4
  84. 4
  85. 4
  86. 4
  87. 4
  88. 4
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. Although I'm a R1b, supposedly with some R1a via genealogy, I really hope there's some Western Hunter Gatherer still knocking about in there. As to the theories: Although logical, there isn't any greater evidence of WHG coming through the matriarchal DNA, as far as I know. So I'm not convinced of the 'kill all the men and take all the women' theory. I still think there's a larger underlying 'failure to reproduce' issue here; whether that is the WHGs were already teetering on the edge of extinction (like our Neanderthal cousins before them) or a viral pandemic carried by the Yamnaya that principally effected the WHGs, or a massive and immensely effective genocide. The genocide theory seems too centralised and too based on a massive cultural investment of all Yamnaya in removing the 'natives'; although possible we're not finding mass war graves (as yet). The 'technological superiority' theory doesn't hold in any way true as better technology always assimilates into earlier cultures after the shock of the new is absorbed, eg: the horse and the gun into Native American culture. Lactose tolerance would also have been assimilated genetically by interbreeding (if people from the two cultures interbred, as did Homo Sapien and Neanderthal before) after a few generations, no surprise that our first herder ancestors developed lactose tolerance. Not convinced that WHGs all committed suicide by drinking milk either. The jury is still out on this ... I'm edging closer to the 'plague' idea though, which might explain why we're not finding inhumations or cremations of WHGs. You die the survivors simply walk away from the body, no ceremony, just fear. If anyone knows of any relatively up-to-date scientific/academic research relating to this mystery, that is publicly available (no space aliens or ancient Atlanteans, thank you) I'd be really interested to know.
    2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138.  @thomaslacornette1282  As I said people in Britain, either in the Iron Age or now, don't share much genetic material with those in south central Europe, except for Indo-European, Middle Eastern Agriculturalist, Pastoralist, Urnfield, Beaker etc etc, that makes up the foundations of our pan-European haplogroups. I think we are coming to an agreement that Celticness is a lot more than just being about a small gene pool, it is about language, art, music, social structures, laws ... and these days nationality. Neither is it bound by time or geography. As 'Celtic' is quite possibly an exonym, a generic Greek term for a European that doesn't speak a classical language, being part of the larger barbarian population, and as it also had a renaissance in usage in the Victorian period, I feel a strict definition is not only not possible but also not helpful. Personally, I'm not convinced by tight definitions of 'Celticness' by historians, academics, genealogists or geneticists, although I respect their endeavours. It is and probably always has been a loose term for a disunified but recognisable culture. Maybe it is more readily understood in relation to what it isn't ... classical, germanic, scandinavian, slavic. I'm a Celt (self-identified) ... not born in a 'Celtic' country, not speaking a 'Celtic' language, not living in the Iron Age ... but having a long ancestral history in Britain. A combination of all the immigrants that came to seek shelter in these far north-west european shores.
    2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. I'm bi-phasic and have been for about the last ten years, but not through choice, which is a long story which isn't relevant. I truly wish this wasn't my usual sleep pattern and is highly inconvenient. I'm going to disagree with you on the practicality of intentional bi-phasia for most Victorians. By the mid-Victorian period the rural/urban mix was about 50/50. The rural population would have risen with the cockerel and made most use of the daylight hours, summer and winter. Most of the urban population were either doing 'piece work' at home and needed the daylight to see the loom/spindles etc without the cost of candles or were working 15 hour shifts in a factory and went to work when the whistle blew, leaving again at the sound of the same mournful drone. Industrial production was often 24/7 so before one shift finished another shift had 'clocked on' After going for food (most homes only had a rudimentary kitchen) and seeking some entertainment then sleep was brought on by physical exhaustion (and alcohol) and the necessity of having to be up for work. The cost of candles would have prohibited intentionally working at night; although I'm quite sure many people still did so to make ends meet if there wasn't enough daylight to finish enough 'pieces' in the winter months. I suspect being intentionally bi-phasic would have been for the people who had the wealth to take lunch and a nap afterwards (shades of Jane Austin); however I'm willing to be dissuaded of this opinion given a lot of well researched primary source evidence.
    2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. Raising a military socio-economic point, the Roman army may have been able to win victories in Wales and set up some well garrisoned 'civic' centers on the good farm land of the east, they may have been able to extract taxes or possibly even tribute from local tribes but that money went back out of the door in paying off tribal leaders not to raid into what land had been 'civilised'. The Romans never felt safe enough there to supplant the local rulers and the local chieftains did not Romanise their tribes. There is not one single villa in present Wales. As for Scotland it was always beyond the effective reach of Roman 'civilisation', being the vanity project of several Roman emperors. The Romans could march an army in, the tribes would make way and hit Roman supply lines. Watch towers and forts were set up to defend supply lines, then defensive walls, none of which Rome could hold militarily over the medium to long term; never mind setting up civic centers. Much higher bribes went out to local chieftains than could be raised in any form of taxed economy. A drain on military and financial resources. A good analogy would be Afghanistan, hilly, tribal and liable to erupt into revolt at any moment. And of course the only literary evidence of military victories came from whom ... Romans, not biased at all of course. Case in point Mons Graupius .... Yeah, Rome wins another brilliant military victory ... now lets retreat smartish before the Emperor has me executed for this fiasco, besides these bloody midges are eating me alive !
    2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. ​ @nostalji93  I accept you apology regarding being rude and dismissive, lets move on. I don't understand why you were so defensive as I only responded to your initial comment to Sandy as I found Sandy's comment genuine and open, where I found your comment combative and dismissive to his whole world view. My 'quick assumption' was that you were looking for a response to oppose, you just got it off me not Sandy. I don't think that was 'bad faith' as it was borne out by subsequent responses; I doubt that a young fundamentalist would have either the confidence or dialectic background to wade into that discussion, as your summing up of the OT as 'horrible' would probably have put him off, as may have your jumping from gender specific pro-noun to another. Sandy's avatar icon is ostensibly male, he spells his name the male way, and as a Christian Fundamentalist I'm presuming he may be disinclined to be gender neutral; if unsure its acceptable to describe someone as 'they' when referring to them in the third person, (it might be worth noting here I'd probably not agree with much of Sandy's 'fundamentalist' viewpoint; its worth also noting his concept of ;fundamentalism' may not be either yours or mine) and I appreciate that you wanted a discussion coming from someone of a different religious viewpoint - which I didn't give you. I don't think that dismissing the whole of the Old Testament as 'horrible' is justified. There are elements of both the Old and New Testaments that I would describe as 'dubious' in the modern timeframe but as the Bible is an anthology of so many different authors over a long period of time, not to mention multiple translations, from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin then English, then it is not surprising there are different viewpoints within it; different Christian denominations also have their own preferred editions. There were also several Councils in the early Church to decide what was Canonical and what to simply leave out, which isn't agreed upon by all denominations, particularly the western and Orthodox churches. In reference to my original phrasing and re-phrasing using 'background' 'perspective' and 'viewpoint' ; all I was trying to say was that Sandy was making it clear he was aware he was subjective ... I was less sure from your initial comment to him you were aware of your own subjectivity, and it took a few responses for you to say so. I just kept responding until you stated it. There was no 'virtue signaling' or religious/faith viewpoint expressed throughout any of my responses (except included, in passing, in this response). I was genuine in saying I'm neutral on such things (also taking into account my own background/subjectivity). There was no constructive criticism offered as you didn't appear to have any defined stated viewpoint on any matter of religious theology (or statistics); your comments appeared to be merely aimed at myself for querying you. Although I can swear like a trooper, there's a time and place. Responding to a stranger online, even one that you perceive as annoying, with you immediately telling them their saying BS doesn't come across well. If you feel I have contradicted myself or become incoherent in any way I'd be willing to try to clarify my meaning, the same goes for any direct questions you think I've dodged. I too found it difficult to follow your narrative/meaning at times. They do say that America and Britain are two countries separated by the same language, I'm assuming you are American as you called me 'Dude'.
    1
  327. ​ @nostalji93  I wouldn't say that English was most Americans first language either 😊. Perhaps it might be an idea just to say English isn't my first language right at the beginning of any lengthy conversation. Your English is a darned site better than my German. I don't know how old you are, presumably older than Sandy and younger than myself (mid 50's). There was a female singer in the mid-sixties called Sandie Shaw. In truth I was quite sexist in presuming a respondent on a philosophy channel was male and then checked his avatar afterwards. I still don't know if you dismiss the whole of the OT entirely or on what basis, moral, historical or if its just pre-Christian. I possibly (probably) came in too quickly on your response to Sandy but as you realise you'd probably closed it down with the OT comment. My concern (objective) initially was that a young man might innocently walk into having to justify his faith to someone else but not have the ability to do so, the context was a vlog about statistics and not religious belief after all. As to myself I was brought up in 'Faith' schools, what type isn't really relevant. I studied Greek and Roman history at college, where I picked up an appreciation of philosophy and dialectics. I then went on to study the Reformation at university but from a historical viewpoint not a theological one. I then went into teaching. I'm more interested in how religion shapes culture rather than holding any particular faith strongly myself. Respecting everyone's right to differ without necessarily agreeing with them. Now semi-retired. If there is a take away from this its, if I can use a British phrases, not to go in like a bull in a china shop i.e. you can do a lot of damage quickly. Using words that could be perceived as negative usually results in people not listening to what you have to say; even if your points are relevant and succinct and your curiosity is genuine. I'm not trying to 'save you' in any way. We can only do that from within. Take care.
    1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. Sounds a lot like WASP well-heeled, monocultural, un-empirical, anecdotal, sour grapes to me. I'm white, English, male, middle-aged and never felt threatened by the diverse society around me. What are being claimed as being British and Christian (both of which I am) values are not any more unique to Britain or Christianity than they are to any other state or religion. People the world over are good, bad or indifferent. You're not racist to believe in the 'uniqueness' of our culture (your concept of what 'our' culture is may not be mine) but it does tend to lead to 'us and them' ism, that implicitly becomes dangerous to those you perceive as being 'other' if you use it to justify treating them as being different or lesser. There are no 'holy cows', and everything should be questioned; including how Britain relates to the world, past, present and future. That isn't 'revisionism', its historical research. Neither is it a religion, there is no coda or set path to enlightenment. We have always presented an image of history that reflects ourselves in the present time, however questioning perceptions of the past is a necessity for each generation. Simply accepting them at face value is neither healthy nor intellectually valid. The past is not sacrosanct, neither is any historical figure. Ignoring information because you don't like what you see doesn't make it any less true; although you are always filtering this information through the veil of your own experiences, values and the age in which you live. As you get older your value sets change and so do societies. Although, ostensibly, Mr Fox and I may look and sound alike he does not speak for me and doesn't represent my perception of white, English, male, middle-aged culture. I'm afraid it looks more like he is seriously concerned that there is less deference given to the received wisdom of the leaders of society; even though, by enlarge, they remain in charge. He speaks loudly of the need to query and debate the status quo but I fear his 'party' will attract precisely those that will tenaciously resist any attempt to compromise the status quo of their own opinions. There is the seed of his 'silent majorities' downfall. I defend his right to speak as he finds but I still perceive that he speaks in defense of unrepresentative 'privilege', white or otherwise, as does Mr Anderson.
    1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. Thank you for the response. Unfortunately I missed your past tense; however you didn't clearly define the period you referred to, only mentioning tombstones and pottery evidence. You need to cite your sources to assert claims that Romanticism was simply 'Biblical fanatacism', although I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase. (not that this is an exercise in the writing of footnotes). Neither do you define your source for linguists that do not defend the connection of insular P&Q Celtic to Gaulish and other transcontinental Celtic languages. It would also help if your named your 'number one textbook' on Celtic languages. I take note of your endonymic evidence from western Iberia and southern France, which rather supports my initial comment on the site about 'self-identification' as Celtic, which I agree is largely the result of the Romanticist and Nationalist movements of the 19th century. To this extent we are arguing the same point. I did use loosely the term Celto-Iberian (meaning the Celts in Iberia) but avoided using the word Celtiberians. It is worth pointing out there was no hard and fast borders between one tribal grouping and another. This was not done out of ignorance, as Celtiberian was a loose heading used in classical times and there is still no definitive agreed list of tribes or tribal borders that fall under the generic modern heading Celtiberian today (did Celtiberians self-define as Celtiberians, probably not); although I think the spirit of the phrase is the fluid mixing of Celtic peoples and the pre-Celtic Iberians. No hard and fast cultural, genetic, linguistic or artistic borders. In conclusion, I think we are largely making the same point regarding the issue of self-identification issues in contrast to the problems of cultural labelling from outwith (classical sources in this case). Feel free to stick to Celts only coming from southern France and western Iberia. You will hopefully forgive me for erring on the side of a linguistic, artistic, genetic diaspora across Europe that went by different tribal names but had many cultural overlaps, who probably did not define themselves as Celtic, as a useful shorthand, until the 19th century.  @jboss1073 
    1
  354. Thank you for your prompt references. I shall certainly try to source them and read over them. I largely think that we tend to agree in most matters (the modernity of self-identification) although we may differ in the overall cultural overview. Those people of southern France and western Iberia that used the word Celt on their pottery and tombstones didn't develop their culture in either geographical or historical isolation, but as a process of migration of Indo-Europeans that developed many distinct but related hybrid agricultural and pasturalist societies in the pre-classical age. I do note that you originally said 19th century Romanticism sprung from Biblical fanatacism; which is rather different from Biblical Romanticism. Early 19th century Romanticism certainly did not develop out of a profound biblical or religious belief but out of a rejection, in general, of neo-classicism (artistic and literary) and the 'Ancien Regime', as well as a move towards democracy and universal suffrage. I do however totally accept that you probably meant that the political development of national creation myths came about at the same time as Romanticism; but don't let me put words in your mouth. We wouldn't agree on a strong Biblical fanaticism to these national creation myths, or the literary or artistic movements, although obviously people then as now made reference to the Bible as a cultural keystone of western society. If anything I'd probably say that Romanticism glorified nature itself and not its inferred maker. Not quite on the same page is my own pet theory, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it, that the word celt is derived from what I believe is the ancient Phoenician word for a flat metal ingot about the size of a modern chessboard, generally in the shape of a cow hide, used in trade. I suspect that as, shall we call them Central Europeans, were some of the first iron workers that this may have a linguistic root connection. Let me clarify, I don't mean Celts and Pheonicians are genetically or culturally closely related, (the Celtic/Scythian/Pharaoh's daughter stories are absolutely just creation myths I'm sure) just that as 'Central Europeans' were one of the first proponents of iron smelting that the trade ingot and the people who worked it could be connected, although I haven't found any studies on the subject, and it simply could be a remarkable coincidence. @jboss1073 
    1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. According to David Reich, DNA analysis has shown that Western Hunter Gatherers were typically dark skinned, dark haired, and blue eyed.[41] The dark skin was due to their Out-of-Africa origin (all Homo sapiens populations having had initially dark skin), while the blue eyes were the result of a variation in their OCA2 gene, which caused iris depigmentation.[42] Archaeologist Graeme Warren has said that their skin color ranged from olive to black, and speculated that they may have had some regional variety of eye and hair colors.[43] This is strikingly different from the distantly related eastern hunter-gatherers (EHG)—who have been suggested to be light-skinned, brown-eyed or blue eyed and dark-haired or light-haired.[44] Two WHG skeletons with incomplete SNPs, La Braña and Cheddar Man, are predicted to have had dark or dark to black skin, whereas two other WHG skeletons with complete SNPs, "Sven" and Loschbour man, are predicted to have had dark or intermediate-to-dark and intermediate skin, respectively.[45][26][b] Spanish biologist Carles Lalueza-Fox said the La Braña-1 individual had dark skin, "although we cannot know the exact shade."[47] According to a 2020 study, the arrival of Early European Farmers (EEFs) from western Anatolia from 8500 to 5000 years ago, along with Western Steppe Herders during the Bronze Age, caused a rapid evolution of European populations towards lighter skin and hair.[42] Admixture between hunter-gatherer and agriculturist populations was apparently occasional, but not extensive.[48] Evolution of Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic phenotypes in Eurasia. Dark-skinned western hunter-gatherers resided in Western Europe, and expanded to some extent towards north and eastern Europe.[42] Some authors have expressed caution regarding skin pigmentation reconstructions: Quillen et al. (2019) acknowledge studies that generally show that "lighter skin color was uncommon across much of Europe during the Mesolithic", including studies regarding the “dark or dark to black” predictions for the Cheddar Man, but warn that "reconstructions of Mesolithic and Neolithic pigmentation phenotype using loci common in modern populations should be interpreted with some caution, as it is possible that other as yet unexamined loci may have also influenced phenotype."[49] Geneticist Susan Walsh at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, who worked on Cheddar Man project, said that "we simply don't know his skin colour".[50] German biochemist Johannes Krause stated that we do not know whether the skin color of Western European hunter-gatherers was more similar to the skin color of people from present-day Central Africa or people from the Arab region. It is only certain that they did not carry any known mutation responsible for the light skin in subsequent populations of Europeans.[51] A 2024 research into the genomic ancestry and social dynamics of the last hunter-gatherers of Atlantic France has stated that "phenotypically, we find some diversity during the Late Mesolithic in France", at which two of the WHG's sequenced in the study "likely had pale to intermediate skin pigmentation", but "most individuals carry the dark skin and blue eyes characteristic of WHGs" of the studied samples.[52] Cut and Paste from Wikipedia ... although they probably chatted over computers and tested samples like Scientists rather than stood around shipboard water fountains and interjected with a lack of any professional knowledge and training !
    1
  378. There's two basic points here. If you want to look at it in visual terms, it might help. Genealogically - You are the result of all of your ancestors. You are the point 🔽 that all of your ancestors combine to on your family tree. (You are highly likely to have ancestors from multiple continents and countries) Genetically - The DNA that you have inherited from each ancestor gets less and less with each generation that passes 🔼the further back in time you go. (You can't claim to be intellectually or racially superior because your GGGGGGGGGG Granddad was a Viking called Eric) These, of course, are not nice neat broad equilateral triangles, regardless of whether you are speaking genetically or genealogically. Politely put, there's overlap. If there is an attempt to keep bloodlines limited the triangles become narrower (isosceles) both genetically and genealogically, leading to in-bred diseases. The same happens with pockets of populations in outlying areas with limited transport. (Don't sleep with your cousin because her bus is cancelled and she can't get home tonight). What did strike me recently regarding genetic 'rinsing' over seven to ten generations is this might be evolutions way of eliminating debilitating conditions that are passed on from parents to their children, eg If your great great Grandmother had cerebral palsy genes that might not affect your generation of siblings at all. (I'm not medically trained, it just crossed my mind) Reminder - Its the last day of the Para-Olympics today
    1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1