Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

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
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.
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?
TSMesosmagnet
post Jan 7 2010, 05:33 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
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
TSMesosmagnet
post Jan 11 2010, 01:46 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
@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
TSMesosmagnet
post Jan 12 2010, 04:13 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
user posted image

I came across this picture many times while doing some reading. This picture states the facts that a recessive deleterious allele will become dominant in offspring born of 2 carriers of the deleterious allele. But it seems to have removed the other possible outcomes.
Aa + AA = { AA, Aa, Aa } the assumption is that the deleterious allele is more likely to be passed on rather than the dominant beneficial allele? According to probability shouldn't the chances of offspring with AA and Aa be equal?
Aa + Aa = { aa } and where have the other possible outcomes gone? Aa + Aa = { AA, Aa }. Yet again in terms of probability the chances of producing offspring with Aa should be higher than aa and AA.

Now lets define a new diagram: (only inbreeding, no crossbreeding)

First Stage :
AA + Aa = { AA, AA, Aa, Aa }

Second stage :
AA + AA = { AA, AA, AA,AA }
Aa + Aa = { AA, Aa, Aa, aa }

Third stage :
AA + aa = { AA, Aa, Aa, aa } but if natural selection were to be present aa wouldn't get a chance to reproduce no? **
Aa + aa = { Aa, aa, aa, Aa }


**Over time, natural selection weeds deleterious alleles out of a population — when the dominant deleterious alleles are expressed, they lower the carrier's fitness, and fewer copies wind up in the next generation

Already by the 3rd generation we see that the AA individuals are more abundant than individuals with Aa and aa.
I am assuming that we can compute the outcome of genetic drift using probability.

Another point to ponder : what if there were a recessive beneficial allele? What outcome would we get then?
TSMesosmagnet
post Jan 13 2010, 03:25 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
@lin00b
QUOTE
A being the dominant allele will suppress the recessive a. so Aa while carrying bad genes, the bad quality is not express and the individual live a healthy life.

so as far as quality of life is concern, Aa and AA has no difference. while aa is catastrophic. in case of a large population, the chance of aa being expressed is significantly lower than AA or Aa as opposed to a small sample size of inbreeding.

as shown in the your example, by the third generation, 3/8 has aa. (1/8 at 2nd)

comparatively in crossbreeding, the chance of aa being expressed is significantly lowered.

not not neccessary all a is bad, there is a possibility that ou have some recessive genes that are good. but life prefer to err on the side of safety. its basic instinct. you prefer to take a risk if its to protect something you already have rather than to take a risk to get something that may benefit you.
Just pointing out something regarding my example that I did not mention previously. My diagram was intentionally flawed because I left out similar outcomes. But if the frequency of allele is calculated :
Assumptions
- each pair of parents produces 4 offspring
- offspring consist of equal number of male and female (for reproduction purposes)
- and that the cumulative number of each type of allele in the offspring is double the number of each type of allele in the parent
- each offspring mates with both of the offspring of opposite sex

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


The frequency of recessive allele doesn't change. But applying this theory:
Over time, natural selection weeds deleterious alleles out of a population — when the dominant deleterious alleles are expressed, they lower the carrier's fitness, and fewer copies wind up in the next generation
Offspring with aa will not be able to reproduce, thus the frequency of the recessive deleterious allele will be reduced by 5%.

It's true that through crossbreeding the chances of aa being expressed is significantly lowered, but only if we assume that the current population is comprised of more AA than Aa. If the opposite was true and there is more Aa than AA the chances of producing aa is increased rather than decreased. (Does this make sense? I'm a little bit confused)

Regarding your final statement. I totally agree that our current human population poses this instinct of protecting what we have. This is probably why natural selection doesnt work very well when human beings are concerned. While in the animal population, a weak lion cub which cannot cope with the harshness of the environment is regrettably left behind. Even though I want to accept the fact that it is natures way of functioning I cant help but to pity the ones left behind. And I think this is where we distinguish ourselves from the animal kind, even at the cost of evolution.



TSMesosmagnet
post Jan 13 2010, 10:49 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
Even if humans were to cross-breed, wouldn't we one day all posses the same recessive genes? And when that happens, won't the same effect of inbreeding be shown in those who cross-breed? So are we just trying to avoid the inevitable?

QUOTE(thesupertramp @ Jan 13 2010, 09:28 PM)
My point isn't about the differences between the effects of natural and modern medicine. The point is that humans have the unique ability to use tools. Modern medicine can be seen as one of humankind's greatest tools. Arguing medicine is counter productive to evolution would be similar (perhaps the same) as arguing the invention of guns have made the weak able to hunt for food, when in fact they should be left to die. Or the use of clothes have ensured the survival of those with less adipose tissues.

The use of tools is part of our evolutionary history and since we still exist, it can be said that it has served us well so far.

I was not referring to Lamarckism in its traditional sense. Genes cannot be altered, I know that. I was referring to the passing on of knowledge. We do not pass on knowledge of medicine genetically, but we do so in the form of books, lectures and teachings. In a sense, this is not Lamarckism, but it is close. We acquire that knowledge throughout life and pass it on. This ability to pass on knowledge is immensely significant in many species's survival.

Perhaps this is more akin to the Meme theory. If it is, then that further supports my point as modern medicine has grown and flourished.
*
Medicine, weapons, and even clothes hinders evolution, in some way. Because these tools allowed unfit individuals(in the physical sense) to survive and reproduce. Which would not happen if nature had her way. But looking at it from a different point of view, it is probably because those unfit individuals(who were not strong physically but posses mental strength) were able to survive, that we are able to enjoy the luxuries of technology in this age and time. In which case Steven Hawking would make a perfect example.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel obliged to include this here. I read an article here. The article states :
QUOTE
..rats and mice had plenty of mates to choose from and harmful DNA mutations were rapidly eliminated from the gene pool.

That statement there confuses me greatly. So far in my reading, I've noted that the only way harmful DNA mutations / deleterious allele were able to be eliminated or suppressed is by removing the particular individual that carries the deleterious allele.

What my whole thread was based on was the fact that inbreeding lead to deleterious traits to be expressed thus individuals with those traits were left unable to reproduce. Thus removing the particular deleterious trait from the gene pool. And allowing only those with seemingly perfect genes to continue populating the earth. Or the other way around where previously recessive beneficial traits are expressed allowing them to aid the evolution of mankind. But if cross-breeding removes deleterious traits from the gene pool, then the whole point of this thread has been nullified.

This post has been edited by Mesosmagnet: Jan 13 2010, 10:51 PM

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0196sec    0.96    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 25th November 2025 - 05:04 PM