Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages  1 2 3 >Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Inbreeding and Accelerated Evolution, prev: Incest, Inbreeding & Evolution

views
     
TSMesosmagnet
post Dec 20 2009, 06:34 PM, updated 16y ago

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
I've read many articles over the years regarding incest. And how people are very against such practices.

First allow me to define Incest and Inbreeding : (taken directly from wikipedia)

- Incest is any sexual activity between close relatives (often within the immediate family) irrespective of the ages of the participants and irrespective of their consent, that is illegal, socially taboo or contrary to a religious norm.
- Inbreeding is a genetic term that refers to reproduction as a result of the mating of two animals which are genetically related to each other.


Now though I would actually like to discuss about inbreeding, I would mainly like to discuss inbreeding in humans thus my reason for including incest. Incest usually leads to inbreeding.

To most people today inbreeding is a bad practice. Known results of inbreeding include genetic disorders, lower birth-rate, higher infant mortality, slower growth rate, and immune system problems. And just based on that fact we regard inbreeding as a bad practice.

Here is what most people miss. No matter what you believe in, whether it be in evolution or in God creating man and women. Humans started as few, and in that few, inbreeding must have taken place for the population to grow. And at one point inbreeding stopped and that is what caused the human population to become larger than it should be. Allowing genes of weak members of the species to thrive, is probably human species worst mistake.

Inbreeding helps in the natural selection process, removing the weak genes (which cause members of the species to lose out), so that the strong genes ( from the more fit of the species ) may thrive. What that essentially means is that evolution relies heavily on inbreeding. And when humans stopped inbreeding, we stopped evolving.

As we know evolution happens when the next generation inherits the previous generations traits, and the process is repeated, producing a refined being. Most of the time, these traits passed down to the next generation, which have been developed/cultivated by the previous generation, ends up as recessive genes. Why? Because only genes that are present in both sets of chromosomes will become dominant. And usually the only genes that are present in both sets of chromosomes are the genes of our ancient ancestors. Thus stalling the evolution process.

Unlike animals, humans are in control of their environment, and they are able to choose who they reproduce with. And based on that humans should be evolving much faster than most other beings on the planet. Proof of that is found when livestock breeders perform selective breeding and culling. This process produces the "best" livestock based on the criteria that the breeder has chosen.


My short point of view on the topic. Please share what you think.

This post has been edited by Mesosmagnet: Jan 9 2010, 02:07 PM
ZeratoS
post Dec 20 2009, 09:00 PM

Oh you.
******
Senior Member
1,044 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
From: 127.0.0.1


I stand on the fence on this matter, though you do have quite the point there. The question then actually lies on the issue of morality, a rather subjective thing. What may be considered the best course of action may not necassarily be the most morally correct one in the eyes of society.
lin00b
post Dec 20 2009, 09:43 PM

nobody
*******
Senior Member
3,592 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
while selective human breeding may produce offspring of superior quality;

1. our genetic knowledge is not good enough to ensure this "smaller, leaner gene pool" have a good enough defence against future desease.

2. humans are not mindless machine that act purely on logic. if your you dont like your partner despite s/he having the most compatible genetic material, you dont proceed.. and vice versa.

3. and no; while religious text may suggest inbreeding (starting population=few). this does not happen with evolution. as evolution is not discrete. during speciation, neighbouring branches are still fertile with each other and with the source branch, providing ample variation until the new species have a big enough population size.
SUSb3ta
post Dec 21 2009, 03:38 AM

responsible poster stormtrooper
****
Senior Member
685 posts

Joined: Apr 2007
From: malaysia


if everything goes according to TS' ideals then all it takes to wipe us out is a single disease. with inbreeding, the chances of genetic variation is lower, hence probably makes it harder for us to have people to be able to develop an immunity or resistance towards diseases. diversity is the way to go.

there is always this thing called natural selection where the weak is defeated. this works no matter what your genotype is.

besides, the rate at which technology has developed for us has been the greatest in this century. it is also in this century that we see many more people of mixed heritage. on the contrary, mixed breeding has been showing tremendous results as it allows humanity to find its best combination.
SUSslimey
post Dec 21 2009, 04:21 AM


*******
Senior Member
6,914 posts

Joined: Apr 2007
i disagree that evolution has stopped. my observation is that the human's physical size has been reducing throughout the years and the mental side has grown.

and there is no proof that when human first appear there is inbreeding.

as for the weak genes or strong genes selection through selective breeding.....how do you define which gene's are strong or weak ? strong gene's might be considered weak in certain environmental or sociological conditions and vice versa.

as for the rate of evolution, it depends largely on the stability of the genes on the chromosome and the rate of reproduction.

we as humans do have the choice to select or steer the direction of evolution. for now there's genetic screening for pathology at the level of sperm and ovum before they fuse.

we just scratched the surface of what is possible in genetics, maybe in the future we might have the choice to select the traits we want.
100n
post Dec 21 2009, 05:09 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
211 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
"And at one point inbreeding stopped and that is what caused the human population to become larger than it should be. Allowing genes of weak members of the species to thrive, is probably human species worst mistake."

I think this statement is wrong. When inbreeding stop. Only human population thrive. Any species that practise inbreeding are heading to extinction(proven). Example: Tasmania tiger, Black Rhino.

"Proof of that is found when livestock breeders perform selective breeding and culling. This process produces the "best" livestock based on the criteria that the breeder has chosen."

Selection Breeding is different from Inbreeding. Selection breeding is to chose the best stock to breed with another different stock. Which means, selection breeding is to avoid inbreeding.

Inbreeding only works on stock/ornamental pet. Which also proven to create more undesire offspring that usually deform. Which end up more culling.

Inbreeding also reduce the gene pool which will wipe out the whole species if disease strike.

For example: HIV kill Human. But due to the large gene pool in Human. Scientist already found a minority of human actually immune to HIV. Therefore, If whole world infected with HIV. Most probably african will survive.

This post has been edited by 100n: Dec 21 2009, 05:10 PM
TSMesosmagnet
post Dec 21 2009, 06:02 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
Hmm..

What most of you are saying, concerns the current human population. Which to me has already been "defiled". So currently even if we humans were to practice inbreeding it wouldn't really turn out very well. But..

One day, an unknown disease wipes out a very large portion of the human population with only those who are immune to the disease survive. Though this few that survive might be the effects of diversity in the gene pool (as some of you have said), what I want to express is what happens after the mass die out.

If those few humans left were to reproduce, their offspring would never have to fear of being infected by the unknown disease. Only after that will inbreeding work to produce "better" human beings.

Thus less genetic diversity is not entirely a bad thing. Though there is a possibility of our race being wiped out by a single epidemic, we are less likely to be infected in the first place. By assuring that only the toughest of individuals survive and reproduce, the probability of getting infected easily is also reduced.

Now while doing some "research" on the matter I found this article. It is dated 1992 which is clearly a very long time ago but the article is still worth the read.


» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


SOURCE


I'd really like more feedback on the matter. It doesn't have to be proven fact, just theories are welcome too.
deeplyheartbroken
post Dec 21 2009, 11:24 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
774 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
If practiced repeatedly, it leads to an increase in homozygosity of a population.
jswong
post Dec 22 2009, 02:05 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
200 posts

Joined: Jun 2007
It's not true that inbreeding leads to evolution! Where did you read that??

Inbreeding leads to a pedigree collapse. Human genes improve when the so-called "genetic distance" is greater. The greater the dissimilarities, the stronger the resultant combination. Don't forget that men have XY chromosomes that do not support error-correction unlike women's XX. The Y portion will change over time, whether losing or gaining information. That's how scientists could track changes in a bloodline from one generation to the next.

When you inbreed, the resultant male offspring's XY chromosome will have more errors compared to a non-inbred one. Inbreed another generation, and the errors multiply. Pretty soon you'll have a generation of basket cases who are unable to survive and they die off.
IcyDarling
post Dec 22 2009, 06:01 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,372 posts

Joined: Sep 2008


QUOTE(Mesosmagnet @ Dec 20 2009, 07:34 PM)
I've read many articles over the years regarding incest. And how people are very against such practices.

First allow me to define Incest and Inbreeding : (taken directly from wikipedia)

- Incest is any sexual activity between close relatives  (often within the immediate family) irrespective of the ages of the participants and irrespective of their consent, that is illegal, socially taboo  or contrary to a religious norm.
- Inbreeding is a genetic term that refers to reproduction  as a result of the mating of two animals which are genetically related to each other.
Now though I would actually like to discuss about inbreeding, I would mainly like to discuss inbreeding in humans thus my reason for including incest. Incest usually leads to inbreeding.

To most people today inbreeding is a bad practice. Known results of inbreeding include genetic disorders, lower birth-rate, higher infant mortality, slower growth rate, and immune system problems. And just based on that fact we regard inbreeding as a bad practice.

Here is what most people miss. No matter what you believe in, whether it be in evolution or in God creating man and women. Humans started as few, and in that few, inbreeding must have taken place for the population to grow. And at one point inbreeding stopped and that is what caused the human population to become larger than it should be. Allowing genes of weak members of the species to thrive, is probably human species worst mistake.

Inbreeding helps in the natural selection process, removing the weak genes (which cause members of the species to lose out), so that the strong genes ( from the more fit of the species ) may thrive. What that essentially means is that evolution relies heavily on inbreeding. And when humans stopped inbreeding, we stopped evolving.

As we know evolution happens when the next generation inherits the previous generations traits, and the process is repeated, producing a refined being. Most of the time, these traits passed down to the next generation, which have been developed/cultivated by the previous generation, ends up as recessive genes. Why? Because only genes that are present in both sets of chromosomes will become dominant. And usually the only genes that are present in both sets of chromosomes are the genes of our ancient ancestors. Thus stalling the evolution process.

Unlike animals, humans are in control of their environment, and they are able to choose who they reproduce with. And based on that humans should be evolving much faster than most other beings on the planet. Proof of that is found when livestock breeders perform selective breeding and culling. This process produces the "best" livestock based on the criteria that the breeder has chosen.
My short point of view on the topic. Please share what you think.
*
my knowledge to this topic is really limited. So im just voicing opinion, dont flame me if i got it all wrong icon_question.gif


Well as u said,

Here is what most people miss. No matter what you believe in, whether it be in evolution or in God creating man and women. Humans started as few, and in that few, inbreeding must have taken place for the population to grow. And at one point inbreeding stopped and that is what caused the human population to become larger than it should be. Allowing genes of weak members of the species to thrive, is probably human species worst mistake.
from this quote, u are making ur assumption in the point of view where u believe God created man and women. I myself believe in god too, but scientist has succesfully linked us to chimps(or is it ape) and they concluded that our species evolved from them. Scientificly, the apes "incested" and evolved when the popularity was enough

once again, CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG
vivienne85
post Dec 22 2009, 09:54 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
360 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: land of Starlight


somehow this topic will touch on God and creation and evolution,TS.

anyways,inbreeding within the family increases the chances of getting the recessive/bad traits.

inbreeding has got nothing to do with evolution AT ALL,period.


SUSb3ta
post Dec 22 2009, 11:47 PM

responsible poster stormtrooper
****
Senior Member
685 posts

Joined: Apr 2007
From: malaysia


QUOTE(IcyDarling @ Dec 22 2009, 09:01 PM)
my knowledge to this topic is really limited. So im just voicing opinion, dont flame me if i got it all wrong  icon_question.gif
Well as u said,

Here is what most people miss. No matter what you believe in, whether it be in evolution or in God creating man and women. Humans started as few, and in that few, inbreeding must have taken place for the population to grow. And at one point inbreeding stopped and that is what caused the human population to become larger than it should be. Allowing genes of weak members of the species to thrive, is probably human species worst mistake.
from this quote, u are making ur assumption in the point of view where u believe God created man and women. I myself believe in god too, but scientist has succesfully linked us to chimps(or is it ape) and they concluded that our species evolved from them. Scientificly, the apes "incested" and evolved when the popularity was enough

once again, CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG
*
there are missing links. this is not fact yet. it's still a theory, although a seemingly strong one.

theory of evolution. not fact of evolution
IcyDarling
post Dec 23 2009, 06:33 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,372 posts

Joined: Sep 2008


QUOTE(vivienne85 @ Dec 22 2009, 10:54 PM)
somehow this topic will touch on God and creation and evolution,TS.

anyways,inbreeding within the family increases the chances of getting the recessive/bad traits.

inbreeding has got nothing to do with evolution AT ALL,period.
*
well, the reason i linked them is because the TS stated that human started few when god created man and woman. So incest was a must. Evolution explains why incest did not happen,scientificly . anyway, its just my opinion.
vivienne85
post Dec 23 2009, 08:46 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
360 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: land of Starlight


QUOTE(IcyDarling @ Dec 23 2009, 06:33 AM)
well, the reason i linked them is because the TS stated that human started few when god created man and woman. So incest was a must.Evolution explains why incest did not happen,scientificly . anyway, its just my opinion.
*
ok..got yr point..smile.gif
~lynn~
post Jan 5 2010, 12:07 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


Erm, anyone of you care to discuss this in another perspective, say in terms of human rights and freedom of choice.

If to look at it, some of the country's constitution did not disallow it. It is deem as legal, but was socially rejected.

Well one of the example (pardon me, I have no link nor proof, but remembered reading an article) was Germany, where the siblings married each other.
lin00b
post Jan 5 2010, 12:33 AM

nobody
*******
Senior Member
3,592 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
does freedom of choice/human right include the freedom/right to marry your own sibling if both party consent?
TSMesosmagnet
post Jan 5 2010, 12:52 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
this is a link that relates to that particular german sibling couple.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm

According to the article only in Sweden is marriage between siblings not illegal. I wonder what the law in Malaysia states.

I would like to read up more about the topic. So if anyone knows any links to research done on this particular topic please leave a link here. Most of the studies I've read only focus on the negative side of inbreeding. And based on the fact that the chances of defectiveness in the offspring increases, it should be highly possible that the chances of getting an extra refined offspring also increases. Right?

And regarding human rights, I feel that our private lives are our own concern and the "state" should not get involved.

One more thing, does anyone know of any case where 2 people with AIDS have children? I am well aware that the child born has an almost 100% possibility of being born with AIDS but I also think that there might be a chance that a child born might be immune to the disease. Any research on that?
~lynn~
post Jan 5 2010, 01:20 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


QUOTE(lin00b @ Jan 5 2010, 12:33 AM)
does freedom of choice/human right include the freedom/right to marry your own sibling if both party consent?
*
Well if argued in a liberal democractic country where human rights and freedom of choice are of higher priority, the case could be won :/

QUOTE(Mesosmagnet @ Jan 5 2010, 12:52 AM)
this is a link that relates to that particular german sibling couple.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm

According to the article only in Sweden is marriage between siblings not illegal. I wonder what the law in Malaysia states.

I would like to read up more about the topic. So if anyone knows any links to research done on this particular topic please leave a link here. Most of the studies I've read only focus on the negative side of inbreeding. And based on the fact that the chances of defectiveness in the offspring increases, it should be highly possible that the chances of getting an extra refined offspring also increases. Right?

And regarding human rights, I feel that our private lives are our own concern and the "state" should not get involved.

One more thing, does anyone know of any case where 2 people with AIDS have children? I am well aware that the child born has an almost 100% possibility of being born with AIDS but I also think that there might be a chance that a child born might be immune to the disease. Any research on that?
*
Correct, I agree on how the states shouldn't intrude into the privacy of a personal choice, more so if both parties consent.
However, one may argue the state has the responsibility to protect its citizen. Thus this comes into play in a premise where the society deems incest and sibling marriage as a taboo. Dire repercussions may follow suit if it is allowed.
thesupertramp
post Jan 5 2010, 10:01 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
125 posts

Joined: Dec 2009


QUOTE(Mesosmagnet @ Jan 5 2010, 12:52 AM)
One more thing, does anyone know of any case where 2 people with AIDS have children? I am well aware that the child born has an almost 100% possibility of being born with AIDS but I also think that there might be a chance that a child born might be immune to the disease. Any research on that?
*
I don't think the HIV status of the father matters. The child contracts the virus mostly through the mother's blood as the virus passes through the placenta. The only way the father can pass on the virus to the baby is if he infects the mother, and the mother infects the baby. In other words, sperm does not carry the virus. I'm talking sperm cells here, not semen. Semen does. Be safe.

As for statistics, it is not 100%. According to this study:
Vertical transmission rates for HIV in the British Isles: estimates based on surveillance data. British Medical Journal Nov 6, 1999, v319 i7219, p1227

The rate is 20% with normal birth for pregnant ladies not on Anti-Retrovirals. Cesarean is higher at 32%. With Anti-Retrovirals, the rate drops to 2% and 4% respectively. Of course, there are also some who contract the virus within 6 months of birth from breast-feeding.

Be mindful these statistics are from one particular population, so might not be representative of all humans.


As far as I'm concerned, anti-HIV antibodies are ineffective against the virus. So even if it was passed on from the mother, I doubt the baby will have immunity.

Hope that helped.

EDIT: sucky grammar.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 5 2010, 10:04 PM
~lynn~
post Jan 7 2010, 04:12 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
417 posts

Joined: Feb 2009


QUOTE(thesupertramp @ Jan 5 2010, 10:01 PM)
I don't think the HIV status of the father matters. The child contracts the virus mostly through the mother's blood as the virus passes through the placenta. The only way the father can pass on the virus to the baby is if he infects the mother, and the mother infects the baby. In other words, sperm does not carry the virus. I'm talking sperm cells here, not semen. Semen does. Be safe.

As for statistics, it is not 100%. According to this study:
Vertical transmission rates for HIV in the British Isles: estimates based on surveillance data. British Medical Journal Nov 6, 1999, v319 i7219, p1227

The rate is 20% with normal birth for pregnant ladies not on Anti-Retrovirals. Cesarean is higher at 32%. With Anti-Retrovirals, the rate drops to 2% and 4% respectively. Of course, there are also some who contract the virus within 6 months of birth from breast-feeding.

Be mindful these statistics are from one particular population, so might not be representative of all humans.
As far as I'm concerned, anti-HIV antibodies are ineffective against the virus. So even if it was passed on from the mother, I doubt the baby will have immunity.

Hope that helped.

EDIT: sucky grammar.
*
Helpful statistics, but I don't see how relevant it becomes to the discussion of incest. smile.gif

QUOTE(hurrr @ Jan 6 2010, 07:43 AM)
was not the whole population of the world started from inbreeding?

how did adam and eve was able to copulate and eventually populate the world with 6 billion people?
*
So, if I'm a non-believer i.e. aetheist, your argument falls?

More importantly, looking at the essense of your argument, just because (assuming that it does happen) they practice such act in the past, it should be allowed now?
I find it illogical because then by your logic, shouldn't canabalism be allowed since, well, it was practiced last time no?
Vice versa, long ago women has no rights. Perhaps then by your logic women should be chained to the home (or how some would say, specifically kitchen).

3 Pages  1 2 3 >Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0266sec    0.50    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 25th November 2025 - 09:17 PM