"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? "

Yes. Human start from inbreeding... but adam and eve(if you believe adam n eve) did not populate the world with 6 billion people thru inbreeding.
...............................................................................................
Consider this:
a pair of monkey produce 12 sibling (assuming 6male/6 female). This sibling with eventually mate among the sibling... and the cycle goes on. Because they have the same genetic pool. If a disease strike, 99% of these population will die out (or survive) depends on situation. That's the advantage/disadvantage of inbreeding in long run.

In short-run, if the sibling above inbreed and produce another 12 babies, its possible 10-30% of it die-out due to inbreed because recessive gene are usually carries disease.

---

Added on January 7, 2010, 5:10 pmBtw, check out this webpage:

http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/genetics/inbreeding.html

This post has been edited by 100n: Jan 7 2010, 05:10 PM

Funny how everyone keeps insisting that our recessive genes are more likely to bring harm rather than good.

I'm not saying that they don't bring about harmful traits, but that's the way nature works. Go through a huge bunch of combination until it comes up with a good one to proceed on. Or am I wrong?

Another point to ponder on.. if inbreeding is bad.. then why are we not mating with apes? Humans all in some way related to each other, so we should not be mating among ourselves. And if you go back to a time when there were only a few humans, it is very very obvious that inbreeding did take place, and that is what probably allowed each ethnicity to develop unique likenesses to suit the way of life and environment. eg. Those in sunny countries developed skin to survive in such an environment, people in cold developed sharper noses to be able to breathe in colder air without damaging their inner nasal cavities. If we really look at each ethnicity unique feature we can clearly see evolution. Which very likely would not be present if we continually resisted inbreeding.

I look forward to a rebuttal statement. ^^

EDIT: thanks for the reading material. After reading that I would like to point out that the inbreeding that is being discussed here is not selective inbreeding, as in we do not get to choose which to keep which to be rid of, but rather let nature be the judge of what to keep and what to be rid of. And obviously I am not suggesting that we should ONLY practice inbreeding, as other humans also posses traits that makes a super elite human. And by incorporating them by cross breeding and removing unwanted genes through inbreeding the human race is likely to progress through evolution much faster. =P

This post has been edited by Mesosmagnet: Jan 7 2010, 05:42 PM

Did you read the question that was asked? I was answering a question, not discussing incest. If you have a problem with that, you should have asked why was that question asked in this thread.

I suppose the article has explained it?

Anyway, essentially, there is no such thing as a "perfect race". (Contrary to those who believe God created humans). A species's survival is based on variability, ie, mutations. Inbreeding would create one and the same. If conditions on earth were to remain the same forever and ever, this would not be a problem. But as we know, "the only thing that never changes is everything changes." Hence, the variation is important in creating individuals that can survive in this "new" condition. Of course, this also creates individuals that are less suitable than before to this new condition. That is where natural selection comes in. The weak will parish even before they pass on their genes, and the fit survive, and reproduce.

A hypothetical example would be, if one day Oxygen level were to drop too low that our current lungs cannot absorb this gas, then without variability, ie, if everyone's lungs are identical, it would be Goodbye Homo sapiens. However, if mutations occurred and there are individuals with lungs capable of absorbing low levels oxygen, they will survive, and reproduce. Homo sapiens survive.


As for inbreeding at the initial stages of humanity, no, that is a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is gradual. There is never a clear jump from one species to another in the evolutionary process. Only in retrospect would we have seen the difference, as we can compare the two fossils that date millions of years apart. Hence, the "first few humans" on earth were most likely not very different from their parents. So, unless their population was wiped out until a few of them remained, I don't see how inbreeding was necessary. I hope you get what I mean.

Why we don't mate with apes? It is because the variability of that would be too high, resulting in too low a survival rate for the newborns. To me, high variability may be good, but it is not necessary since the Earth's condition does not change rapidly, but gradually. (except for a few times in the last 3 billion years, which as we know, resulted in many species disappearing). Therefore, no reason for that compromise.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 7 2010, 06:50 PM

by saying "there are only few humans last time, therefore they inbreed" it shows you do not understand evolution.

understand this.

EVOLUTION IS NOT DISCRETE.

and at present, since human and ape are separate species, they will not produce any fertile offspring (if they produce any at all)

Well if there's anyone who's willing and choose to mate with an ape, I don't see why not. It is that person's personal choice and freedom to do so.
However, the thought that anyone who find an ape attractive and is turned on by it is rather disturbing.
But then again, there's nothing new I suppose. After all, there are people marrying their pillow/videogame character.

Are there any law that forbids one from mating with animal? Maybe there is. Unnatural sex perhaps?

Okay.

Bestiality aka zoophilia is illegal in most countries. I don't know the exact reasoning but I would hazard a guess that it is because of health and safety reasons. Infectious diseases could be spread that way. Like AIDS (possibly, not saying it is). It is also mistreatment of animals, because I doubt they want to "get it on" with you. Most anyway.

Why are you not mating with apes?

"Why are you not mating with apes?"

Because they will chew ur cock...

This thread must be the biggest rickroll on Ph.D corner ever. A whole bunch of people discussing genetics and evolution WITHOUT understanding genetics and evolution.

Too many mental masturbators here who can't be arsed to get real knowledge.

WTF! Ph.D section populated by UNEDUCATED people??? You come here to learn but instead you get rickrolled!

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Jan 10 2010, 06:45 AM

@Dickson Poon
I don't have a degree in biology or genetics, all I have is a SPM cert with below average grades.That is why this thread was created. So that I could understand a little more about the topic in question. But you who claim to be better educated than us, has not contributed with a single piece of your knowledge.

The world as we know it has been defined by human beings. And being defined by human beings, means there are many flaws in the definition. That is why we ask questions, no matter how dumb you think they might be, only by asking questions are we able to further increase our understanding about this world we live in.

That aside, I read another article on inbreeding, the articles stresses the downside of inbreeding. But it has a few minor points that support the idea that inbreeding will result in accelerated evolution.

http://canaries.org.uk/download/inbreeding.html

Even if the world were "defined" by human beings, that does not excuse your selective perception.

You are so fixated with the idea of in-breeding as the origin of evolution that you purposely ignore the proven facts that in-breeding in actual fact renders an entire population of animals genetically UNVIABLE. Not only do birth defects and genetic handicaps occur more often, there are more spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and increased chances of disease.

The overall effect of inbreeding is to increase the mortality rate of a species and reduce its viable reproductives. This leads to a decrease in numbers, leading to extinction.


Since you have below average grades in SPM, I highly recommend that you start studying again, read more books, and get in touch with mentors who can correct your flights of fancy by teaching you more rational, critical thinking.

At present your act of trawling through texts with selective perception just to support your nuggets of horseshit are truly disgusting.

---

Added on January 11, 2010, 5:13 pmThere is only one law that forbids sex with animals.

And that is the Human Law.

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Jan 11 2010, 05:16 PM

If you want to accelerate evolution, science & society needs to stop creating processes/services that gives room and allow for the average/weak to live and thrive.

Evolution happens, when nature is allowed to function, Our society today is overriding natures role, in every way possible. Even the trait that everyone wants to think as the main trait for success today isn't really actively promoted. Society want smart/intelligence/knowledgeable people, yet it creates systems for the underperforming, for the useless, and refuses to eliminate the weak.

So, it's not inbreeding or whatsover. It's just science f***ing with what nature was supposed to do.

If nature really was about survival of the fittest, get rid of medicine. That would help get rid of alot of weaklings in the human race.

Edited, need to put some proper thought into response.

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Jan 11 2010, 06:20 PM

I feel honored. take your time.

Not just intelligent folks, but beautiful ones too. Make-up and fashion interferes with natural sexual selection

But that's sexual selection - for intelligence and mental acuity - and that furthers evolution also.

And he still hasn't answer my question why is he not having sex with apes? Cuz he asked "why are we not having sex with apes?".

Meso, answers pleaseee....

I disagree.

Modern medicine has increased human life expectancy by leaps and bounds. That, surely, must mean an increase in survivability? Living longer will allow a longer period for reproduction as well as nurturing the young. How can that not increase survivability?

Furthermore, many diseases can affect almost every human given the chance, regardless of how strong the individual is. And a car can hit anyone, even Arnold Schwarzenegger will need a orthopod when a bus hits him (or a funeral parlour).

Point 1. Modern medicine increase life expectancy is an ARTIFICIAL augmentation of our lifespan. It doesn't IMPROVE our basic genetic pool, our our fundamental health. We've grown so reliant on it, I would go as far to say it has HINDERED natural selection of those who have better genes.

Point 2. Yes. But the stronger immune system has a higher chance to survive (if under no medical intervention), and on a macro level when a higher percent of those with stronger immune system survives, the overall quality of immune systems in human improve (FYI, this is before any medical intervention)

I'm not saying medicine is bad per se, but when discussed in the context of evolution, medicine&science is meddling with what evolution should be doing.

This post has been edited by ThanatosSwiftfire: Jan 12 2010, 08:01 AM

look at it this way, science and technology are the something like the "NEP of evolution" they artificially protect us. now, for any reason if these technology is removed from our daily lives, imagine how vulnerable we will be to the elements and disease.

some individual are more resistant to disease than others. some people seemed to catch whatever sickness thats the flavor of the month. others rarely even get a sore throat. and some community in africa is highly resistant to malaria. etc etc.

---

Added on January 12, 2010, 8:58 amnot really, if you look at male preference, it has gone from plump female circa 1500 to slim female circa 2000. so if there are evolution, where would the selection pressure be? towards plump or slim individuals? and you cannot tell what the preference will be at 2500. the period is also too short to produce any meaningful results

This post has been edited by lin00b: Jan 12 2010, 08:58 AM