Kiss me sister!

[Heraclitus]

Actually it isn't really just the cultural taboo, the Westermarck effect and I'm pretty sure there are some mechanisms at the lower level that reduce the attractiveness of people with too similar genetic make up.

These factors combined create a situation where 99% of people have a cached cliche in their brain Incest = Yuck and/or Evil and decide to punish the 1% who don't.

[Heraclitus]

Aside from that, it's not just cases of out-and-out deformity that we should be concerned with. Genetic diversity is generally to be encouraged, no? If you're just mixing the same old genes together in a population, you're not only encouraging illness, you're gradually losing versatility and adaptability, the main reasons sexual reproduction evolved in the first place (IIUC). BTW, that's the big difference that makes the incest taboo not-entirely-comparable with other forms of "eugenics": it doesn't care about specific genes, it just wants whichever ones you have to be properly blended.

Shouldn't we then ban same-race marriages.
Also there is a flip side to the coin what about co-adapted gene complexes that get broken up?

[Heraclitus]

Yes but that's the result of generations of inbreeding in a larger community.

Please think before you post.

Actually come to think of it I don't really realize why my statement was stupid, unless my original source for the statement is wrong:

In small populations, if children born with heritable birth defects die before they reproduce the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population with an overall decrease in the number of birth defect-causing genes over time. In larger populations it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defects.

Enlighten me.

[Jon Miller]

There is actually a similar amount of genetic diversity between members of the same 'race' compared to members of different 'races'.

JM

[Heraclitus]

There is actually a similar amount of genetic diversity between members of the same 'race' compared to members of different 'races'.

JM

I thought the Negroid (or it the proper term Congoid?) race had more genetic diversity than all the other races combined?

I heard that somewhere and it seemed logical in conjunction with the theory that only one group (a tribe of a few 100 people) of Homo Sapiens left Africa and populated the rest of the world.


Anyway isn't most of the information that distinguishes populations hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not just in the variation of the individual factors?

[Elok]

It seems you know a lot more about genetics than I do. Either that or you're pulling a Molly.

[KrazyHorse]

Hera tends to make **** up that doesn't make any sense, Elok. You should probably just ignore most of what he says.

[Heraclitus]

Hera tends to make **** up that doesn't make any sense, Elok. You should probably just ignore most of what he says.

If you read my last few posts you would see that I'm not making **** up... I do note your failure to justify why my statement made your brain bleed (I even provided my source).


Can't you do me a favor and tell me why I'm wrong?

[Heraclitus]

It seems you know a lot more about genetics than I do. Either that or you're pulling a Molly.

Nah don't. Just google up "out of Africa theory" and you should quickly find the some reference to the extensive testing that shows a small founder population for the world's non-African population.

[Kitschum]

I pulled a Molly this morning. Feeling like doing it again now, but there's people around.

[Elok]

I was referring to:

Anyway isn't most of the information that distinguishes populations hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not just in the variation of the individual factors?

So... Your DNA affects me, or something?

[KrazyHorse]

If you read my last few posts you would see that I'm not making **** up... I do note your failure to justify why my statement made your brain bleed (I even provided my source).


Can't you do me a favor and tell me why I'm wrong?

Because even a pop that practices first cousin repeated inbreeding is going to take many, many, many generations before the level of genetic similarity reaches the same level as 1st gen. sibling incest (or parent-child)

[KrazyHorse]

Your next quote:

In small populations, if children born with heritable birth defects die before they reproduce the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population with an overall decrease in the number of birth defect-causing genes over time. In larger populations it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defects.

By the way, this quote explains why the likelihood of repeated harmful defects increases more slowly in a closed genetic community than even the naive probabilistic answer would suggest.

I don't know why you would quote this (not sure what, exactly you're quoting, BTW) unless you wanted to make your initial statement look even more ignorant.

Hera, you tend to make a lot of statements which demonstrate a facile understanding of the issue you're discussing. You do not display, at all, a capacity for the careful thought a scientist needs to have.

[Japher]

If you're worried about the genetic issues just take multiple wives!

[Heraclitus]

Your next quote:

In small populations, if children born with heritable birth defects die before they reproduce the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population with an overall decrease in the number of birth defect-causing genes over time. In larger populations it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defects.

By the way, this quote explains why the likelihood of repeated harmful defects increases more slowly in a closed genetic community than even the naive probabilistic answer would suggest.

I don't know why you would quote this (not sure what, exactly you're quoting, BTW) unless you wanted to make your initial statement look even more ignorant.

Hera, you tend to make a lot of statements which demonstrate a facile understanding of the issue you're discussing. You do not display, at all, a capacity for the careful thought a scientist needs to have.

Ok, thanks for the response.


The original quote I was commenting

I can add some anecdotal evidence on closely-related marriages. Our Amish neighbors had 2 retarded kids out of 11. As far as I know, this is fairly common, unfortunately

My comment:

Yes but that's the result of generations of inbreeding in a larger community.

The quote I used to back up my comment:

In small populations, if children born with heritable birth defects die before they reproduce the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population with an overall decrease in the number of birth defect-causing genes over time. In larger populations it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defects.

The Amish are a relativley large population esp in the sense of that the quoted source, since many of the children of with brith defects tend to survive and breed. Thus the rate of birth defects are higher than in a more primitve and smaller community where the bad allels are eliminated more quickly.

The generations remark was more of a common sense one and I admit was easy to misunderstand (buf mind you It was a one line comment at how his example was inappropriate in comparison to a hypotehtical incestus married couple with kids), the Amish are a closed population with little new genetic material making it into the population. If this situation lasted for a generation or two there would be no noticeable side effects, however this has lasted for quite a while. For many generations so to speak.

Now lets take a look at what you said:

By the way, this quote explains why the likelihood of repeated harmful defects increases more slowly in a closed genetic community than even the naive probabilistic answer would suggest.

Ahem, a small closed genetic community. Because in sucha community its defective members are less likley to survive. I'm not sure the Amish are big enough fans of euthanasia create effects comparable to that of the small community my quote spoke of.

I don't know why you would quote this (not sure what, exactly you're quoting, BTW) unless you wanted to make your initial statement look even more ignorant.

I think I explained it. Also I was drawing on what I learned in high school biology, so I'm the first to admit ignorance. The source was the first I could find. It was from the wikipedia article on incest.

Hera, you tend to make a lot of statements which demonstrate a facile understanding of the issue you're discussing. You do not display, at all, a capacity for the careful thought a scientist needs to have.

This may be true, I never had ambitions to be a real scientist anyway. I know my natural dispostions (my IQ though above average in the general pop but I'm probably mightly below average here on FMF). I was hoping to become a teacher so that someone more capable has a small chance to make a contribution. I mean heck what are my alternatives? If I firmly belive in something its that this world dosen't need more philosophers, english and/or history majors or even lawyers.