Interesting incest question...

[Atlas14]

Someone here - let's call him "Atlas14" - needs a better grasp of genetics.

Oh yeah. Im taking genetics now. Id bet I have a larger understanding than you, or at least most people here.

Bull****. The DNA strands that mutate or do not mutate know nothing at all of the overall genetic disimilarity of the two combining half-genomes.

Think about what you wrote: "genetic disimilarity". I am arguing that there is lack of genetic variablility, thus too similar of genomes. Who knows nothing about genetics now? The DNA strands don't have to "know" about the genetic similarity to produce mutations. Lack of genetic variability means lack of various proteins and enzymes that control DNA replication, transcription, translation, and mitosis/meiosis. The lack of these proteins means errors will most certainly be made during meiosis when offspring are being given their chromosomal DNA. These errors occur in the form of deletions, insertions, frameshift mutaions, pointshift mutations. A deletion of even a single nucleotide can create a life-threatening disorder.

Let's do this the diagramatical way:
Let X stand for a defective gene
let's say that there are two children
Scenario 1:
Parent with genetic disorder:

XX...........................XX
out of 2 children, the average should be:
XX.............................XX
i.e, 2 healthy children
Occasionally, you might get
XX...................XX
but that means nothing

In fact, allt he children are liekly to be healthy.
The children of the children are jsut as likely.


Now let's assume that by some freak chance of nature, that we have those 6.25 % afflicted both witha defective gene (and this is 2nd generation, remember)

XX.......................XX
This should give:
XX XX X XX
for 4 children.
25%.
Large, but only for more than 2 generations of incest.
That have 4 children.

Your pictoral nonsense is just that. Nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. Don't cover-up your lack of knowledge on genetics with a pictoral diagram that proves no point whatsoever. Just a tip for ya.

 

[Pikachu]

It is one of those things that I truthfully can't prove to you, but it is accepted to be immoral as a society.

A few decades ago homosexuality was one of those things too, but that changed. Why can’t we change this time too?

Genetics and genetic history clearly shows children from two siblings will be borne with multiple birth defects over 90% of the time.

Only if it is repeated through many generations!

Why are you so obsessed with the negative consequences of inbreeding? Inbreeding has advantages too. It increases the chances that good genes are combined and thus produces some offspring with less genetic disorders than crossbreeding. The disorders will likely be detected in the individuals who get bad genes combined, so they will more likely be removed from the breeding population, while the individuals with good genes will probably breed more. In the end some inbreeding can contribute positively to the human gene pool.

How do you not know that?

Frankly I don’t know if the society or I know better what is best for me, but I prefer that I make the final decision for me. As long as it doesn’t hurt anybody, why should the society interfere? The society has no business in regulating people’s love life!

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

Your pictoral nonsense is just that. Nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. Don't cover-up your lack of knowledge on genetics with a pictoral diagram that proves no point whatsoever. Just a tip for ya.

It makes sense to me .

 

[Kyriakos]

Biologically definately there is not a large probability over just two generations (parent-child, so only one incest) of diminishing the immunal system, although ofcourse the children of siblings would not have a better immunal system than their parents, and so in a way they would have been 'diminished', passively so to speak.
But one needs to seperate the biologicalissue from the ethical one. This is easy to do: all you have to do is ask yourself how you see siblings which have sex but do not aim at parenting children.
To me it is clear that this has nothing problematic if both people agree to do it and are not in a power game where one is superior and the other inferior. That said it is true that child-child incest takes place in families that are very unstable, and at any rate the fact that we live in a society and not by ourselves is another detterant for incestious relationships.
However imo it is true that ussually the people who have very strong feelings against incest do so because of their own problems, as is also the case with homophobics. By strong feelings i do not mean ofcourse a simple, logical, lack of want of it in their own life; but a feeling of repulsion.

 

[Atlas14]

A few decades ago homosexuality was one of those things too, but that changed. Why can’t we change this time too?

Homosexuals don't produce a line of defected offspring.

Only if it is repeated through many generations!

Allowing it for one generation would mean you have to allow it for the next. Don't play stupid.

Why are you so obsessed with the negative consequences of inbreeding?

Take a genetics class, become informed on the topic, and then find out.

Inbreeding has advantages too. It increases the chances that good genes are combined and thus produces some offspring with less genetic disorders than crossbreeding.

What "good" genes are you referring to, or are you just making this up as you go along? Remember, genes that aren't deterous to your health most commonly are possessed by nearly every person who is not your sibling, so your options are still open.

In the end some inbreeding can contribute positively to the human gene pool.

No it can't. I'll refer you to my earlier post: I quote myself:

Lack of genetic variability means lack of various proteins and enzymes that control DNA replication, transcription, translation, and mitosis/meiosis. The lack of these proteins means errors will most certainly be made during meiosis when offspring are being given their chromosomal DNA. These errors occur in the form of deletions, insertions, frameshift mutaions, pointshift mutations. A deletion of even a single nucleotide can create a life-threatening disorder.

Moving on...

Frankly I don’t know if the society or I know better what is best for me, but I prefer that I make the final decision for me.

Unfortunately things don't work the way we would always wish. Sometimes the benefit of society prevails over your own selfish desires. I see your point though. Society theoretically shouldn't have the right to tell you what is right and wrong, but this is America, civilization. Rules apply to the nation as a whole.

The society has no business in regulating people’s love life!

And two perverted siblings have no business in contaminating the gene pool when they know the inevitable consequences of their actions.

 

[Kyriakos]

Atlas14: do you have some particular siblings in mind? Because you dont exactly approach this with an open mind.
Not that this is an uncommon view, far from it. But then again people often have such views regarding sex with a non-sibling as well.

 

[Fifty]

photographic and historical evidence that Atlas is correct

 

[Atlas14]

Ok, I think I see what you are saying. But it still is not the point here.

Let's do this the diagramatical way:
Let X stand for a defective gene
let's say that there are two children
Scenario 1:
Parent with genetic disorder:

XX...........................XX
out of 2 children, the average should be:
XX.............................XX
i.e, 2 healthy children
Occasionally, you might get
XX...................XX
but that means nothing

In fact, allt he children are liekly to be healthy.
The children of the children are jsut as likely.


Now let's assume that by some freak chance of nature, that we have those 6.25 % afflicted both witha defective gene (and this is 2nd generation, remember)

XX.......................XX
This should give:
XX XX XX XX
[/color]for 4 children.
25%.
Large, but only for more than 2 generations of incest.
That have 4 children.

The chance of that is absurdly small; much less than the 6.25% I initially calculatd.

Your pictoral diagram, which is too elementary for my liking btw, assumes the genetic defect's mode of inheritance is autosomal recessive. If it were sex-linked, there would be more affected individuals. But the point that I am trying to convey to you is that it is not about heritable defected genes. That only increaes the chances of having defected child down the line. What this is about is the occurance of mutations due to lack of genetic variablity, which the lack of it increases as incest sibling-sibling style increases.

 

[silver 2039]

photographic and historical evidence that Atlas is correct

Oh yes a Hollywood movie great evidence

 

[Atlas14]

Atlas14: do you have some particular siblings in mind? Because you dont exactly approach this with an open mind.

No particular siblings in mind. I am approaching this with a relatively open-mind. It just happens to be the opposing viewpoint of a select few on this thread. Thats fine though.

 

[nonconformist]

Your pictoral diagram, which is too elementary for my liking btw, assumes the genetic defect's mode of inheritance is autosomal recessive. If it were sex-linked, there would be more affected individuals. But the point that I am trying to convey to you is that it is not about heritable defected genes. That only increaes the chances of having defected child down the line. What this is about is the occurance of mutations due to lack of genetic variablity, which the lack of it increases as incest sibling-sibling style increases.

If it weren't recessive, at least one of the parents would be "defective" in any case.
Saying that one should stop incest because of genetic defects is akin of saying one should stop sex, because it causes infinite times more defects than those who abstain.

 

[nonconformist]

Oh yeah. Im taking genetics now. Id bet I have a larger understanding than you, or at least most people here.

If I were you, I certainly wouldn't claim to have greater knowledge than TLC on any subject.

And, while, granted, I'm not a biologist, preferring more emprirical sciences, I do have a rudimentary grasp of genetics, and I can certainly calculate the percentage chance for basic genetic traits.
My calculation of 6.25% is quite precise.

 

[Kyriakos]

Ok, I think I see what you are saying. But it still is not the point here.



Your pictoral diagram, which is too elementary for my liking btw, assumes the genetic defect's mode of inheritance is autosomal recessive. If it were sex-linked, there would be more affected individuals. But the point that I am trying to convey to you is that it is not about heritable defected genes. That only increaes the chances of having defected child down the line. What this is about is the occurance of mutations due to lack of genetic variablity, which the lack of it increases as incest sibling-sibling style increases.

What do you mean 'sex-linked'?
Mutations are not something that occurs more often in incestious pairs; it is a very rare occurence which has a multitude of possible triggers; still every year you see on tv at least one 'siamese twin' case, and you can bet that most of them (if not all, which is very likely, and easy to check) have nothing to do with incest. You seem to be demonising something; it would be like claiming that homosexual sex created HIV by virtue of homosexuality, when the hiv hadnt been around for thousants of years, while homosexual acts were taking place.

 

[Atlas14]

If it weren't recessive, at least one of the parents would be "defective" in any case.
Saying that one should stop incest because of genetic defects is akin of saying one should stop sex, because it causes infinite times more defects than those who abstain.

How do you arrive at that poor correlation? Having mere sex does not imply certain genetic defects among offspring. Incest sibling-sibling style does.

If I were you, I certainly wouldn't claim to have greater knowledge than TLC on any subject.

Im not trying to claim I know more than TLC on the subject, but he accused I need a better grasp on genetics, yet I proved him wrong on one of his attempts at arguing.

And, while, granted, I'm not a biologist, preferring more emprirical sciences, I do have a rudimentary grasp of genetics, and I can certainly calculate the percentage chance for basic genetic traits.
My calculation of 6.25% is quite precise.

Can you count the irrelevancy of your percentage to this topic? You braggartly claim you can calculate a simple percentage, yet you can't grasp the information I am relating to you. You calculated the autosomal recessive MOI. That helps my point. What don't you understand?

 

[Atlas14]

What do you mean 'sex-linked'?

Sorry. I should have been more specific. I said sex-linked as in being linked on the X or Y chromosomes as a mode of inheritance.

Mutations are not something that occurs more often in incestious pairs; it is a very rare occurence which has a multitude of possible triggers

Mutations do occur more often in incestious pairs. Lack of genetic variablility being a huge trigger.

still every year you see on tv at least one 'siamese twin' case, and you can bet that most of them (if not all, which is very likely, and easy to check) have nothing to do with incest.

I am not saying incest is the only environmental cause that sparks mutations.

You seem to be demonising something; it would be like claiming that homosexual sex created HIV by virtue of homosexuality, when the hiv hadnt been around for thousants of years, while homosexual acts were taking place.

Do you understand genetics at all? Please read up a bit on it. I would not for one second claim homosexuality created HIV.

 

[nonconformist]

How do you arrive at that poor correlation? Having mere sex does not imply certain genetic defects among offspring. Incest sibling-sibling style does.

People who don't have offspring don't pass on any defects.
People who do pass on infinitely more.
It's so ridiculous, I could make an argument to outlaw sex without contraception

Can you count the irrelevancy of your percentage to this topic? You braggartly claim you can calculate a simple percentage, yet you can't grasp the information I am relating to you. You calculated the autosomal recessive MOI. That helps my point. What don't you understand?

It is relevant, and better than that, it is pure, crystalline data.
Interpret it whatever way you want, but as a statistician:
a) The percentage chance of recessive defects being passed on (and, from 2nd generation incest, or 2 people witht eh same defecrive, but reecessive, genes who have offspring) are ridiculously low.
b)This percentage is only slightly, or indeed equal to higher than a "normal" couple having offspring
c)And the number of people who would engage in incest is tiny; I.e [tiny number*tiny number=tiny number]. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Genetics is a "scientific" scapegoat that people who feel queasy try to use to justify their disgust.

 

[Pikachu]

Homosexuals don't produce a line of defected offspring.

Neither do sibling marriages. That can only happen if they have children, and even then the chances of producing defect offspring is not greater than many unrelated couples with known genetic disorders.

Allowing it for one generation would mean you have to allow it for the next. Don't play stupid.

Yes, but how often does siblings fall in love with each other? That is so freaking rare that it happening twice in a row will virtually never happen in societies where people marry for love.

Take a genetics class, become informed on the topic, and then find out.

What "good" genes are you referring to, or are you just making this up as you go along? Remember, genes that aren't deterous to your health most commonly are possessed by nearly every person who is not your sibling, so your options are still open.

I may not be an expert in genetics, but I have some knowledge about animal breeding. Inbreeding is extensively used to breed better animals. Combining siblings is an effective way to purify the traits you want, and I can assure you that siblings usually get healthy offspring. The problems rarely occur until the inbreeding has been repeated through many generations. Then it is necessary with a little cross breeding before you can continue the inbreeding.

Society theoretically shouldn't have the right to tell you what is right and wrong, but this is America, civilization. Rules apply to the nation as a whole.

It is not America here

And two perverted siblings have no business in contaminating the gene pool when they know the inevitable consequences of their actions.

It is far from inevitable in the first generation!

Actually they will not contribute much to the contamination of the gene pool at all. On the contrary, more recessive disorders will be detected in incest children, and if they are serious enough they will be removed from the gene pool by natural selection. The offspring who lives on will have less recessive genetic disorders than children of unrelated parents.

Incest children may get other heatlh problems though (at least if it happens over several generations), but they will not be passed on to the next generation unless that one too is incestuous.

 

[Atlas14]

It's so ridiculous, I could make an argument to outlaw sex without contraception

That wouldn't be very popular, now, would it.

It is relevant, and better than that, it is pure, crystalline data.

What do you not understand about that it is HELPING my point, not yours. If we assume two relatively genetically normal/healthy siblings decided to have children, genetic mutations would be the most decisive factor in creating birth defects. Yet you are throwing into play heritable genetic defects, which only increases the childrens' chance at being defected, no matter how small of a percentage they have of inheriting the unfavorable alleles.

c)And the number of people who would engage in incest is tiny; I.e [tiny number*tiny number=tiny number]. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Genetics is a "scientific" scapegoat that people who feel queasy try to use to justify their disgust.

So because a small amount of people engage in it, it makes it acceptable? You and your wacky conclusions.

c)And the number of people who would engage in incest is tiny; I.e [tiny number*tiny number=tiny number]. It doesn't bear thinking about.
Genetics is a "scientific" scapegoat that people who feel queasy try to use to justify their disgust.

Genetics is not a "scientific" scapegoat for people who feel queasy. Stop trying to label everyone as having scandalous motives for believing in something that contradicts your viewpoint.

 

[nonconformist]

What do you not understand about that it is HELPING my point, not yours. If we assume two relatively genetically normal/healthy siblings decided to have children, genetic mutations would be the most decisive factor in creating birth defects. Yet you are throwing into play heritable genetic defects, which only increases the childrens' chance at being defected, no matter how small of a percentage they have of inheriting the unfavorable alleles.

What the hell are you on about?
It doesn't make the chance of birth defects any higher.
If someone is gonna have birth defects, then they're gonna be born with them, irrespective whether or not the parents are brother and sister.
Genetics wouldn't play a factor until at least second generation.
It's ridiculous to think otherwise.
Children from inbred relationships, unless through some statistically negligable fluke, or as the result of many generations of inbreeding are jsut as likely to suffer from genetic defects as people born to unrelated parents.

 

[Atlas14]

Neither do sibling marriages. That can only happen if they have children,

Im arguing against the sibling-sibling offspring, not necessarily marriages at this point.

That can only happen if they have children, and even then the chances of producing defect offspring is not greater than many unrelated couples with known genetic disorders.

Many unrelated couples with known genetic disorders engage in sex (intending to produce offspring) with the knowledge that there is not a 100% chance of their child being born affected. Eventually, sibling-sibling children down the line of generations (assuming sibling-sibling offspring continues to be the pattern of choice) will have darn close to 100% chance of producing defected offspring. Sibling-Sibling genetic variability is simply too small. It is an inevitability.

Yes, but how often does siblings fall in love with each other? That is so freaking rare that it happening twice in a row will virtually never happen in societies where people marry for love.

Rare or not, if it is allowed, it will happen. Thus it shouldn't be allowed.

I may not be an expert in genetics, but I have some knowledge about animal breeding.

Im glad you do.

Inbreeding is extensively used to breed better animals.

If it is, it is done ignorantly because the breeder obviously knows nothing about the genetic consequences of his actions. Do you have an example for your inbreeding for better animals argument? Id like to take a look.

Combining siblings is an effective way to purify the traits you want, and I can assure you that siblings usually get healthy offspring.

Assuring me is futile. I know that siblings will eventually produce genetically defected offspring, and it only gets worse as the generations progress. Read your highschool biology textbook. I would be willing to bet my house that it says small populations of organisms are not favorable for surviving due to constant inbreeding. The "not favorable" refers to constant breeding of the same genetic defects and mutations.

The problems rarely occur until the inbreeding has been repeated through many generations.

"Rarely" I disagree with. But at least you acknowledge they do occur more often through repeated generations.

Then it is necessary with a little cross breeding before you can continue the inbreeding.

And spread the unfavorable mutations and genetic defects that have been culminating inside your sibling-sibling family gene pool for gerations to the "outside" world. No thanks.

It is not America here

Well wherever. This is not necessarily a nation-specific topic.

It is far from inevitable in the first generation!

Agreed. But if you allow it in the first, you legally have to allow it in the 2nd and 3rd and etc. generations. Then comes the inevitability, which is of primary concern.

Actually they will not contribute much to the contamination of the gene pool at all. On the contrary, more recessive disorders will be detected in incest children, and if they are serious enough they will be removed from the gene pool by natural selection.

No, you advocate sibling-sibling breeding and also the defected children breeding with unrelated people, thus natural selection is being somewhat thwarted. You are keeping the prevalence of these unfavorable genes/mutations in the gene pool. Sure, some will die, but not all.

Incest children may get other heatlh problems though (at least if it happens over several generations), but they will not be passed on to the next generation unless that one too is incestuous.

Not true. Down's Syndrome is inherited by Trisomy 21, where instead of a pair of chromosomes you'd have 3. A mutation could cause this disease, causing the presence of the abnormal third chromosome. This could indeed be passed on regardless if your mate is related to you or not.