Negative effects of inbreeding within humans?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Well.. to put it nicely, maybe you ought to read the posts above you. Like where the *science* is discussed. Because... you're factually incorrect - a victim of urban mythology.

I posted this the previous page and it had nothing to do with science, just simple logic :

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

In-breeding may be convenient (why go all the way out and spend lots of money on a female schoolmate, when you can just do your cousin if your culture doesn't forbid?), but it is the later generation that will suffer due to the genetic heritage, and higher reoccurence of defective or dysfunctional genes.

Think of the next generation. Your financial sacrifice will be remembered if your descendant is intelligent enough.

Originally Posted by Jill Valentine

Do you need proof? Like photo's of cousins/brothers/sis's who're married to each other and see their kids I know that because i witnessed it and i was also taught about it at school.

What kind of school teaches that and discredits the Pascal Triangle and Mendelian inheritance in favour of some dumb theory of ugly spawn being the children of incestuous unions?

Ok....what did your school EXACTLY taught you about this?

[Jill Valentine]

A school that's been payed 12.000 Euro a year.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jill Valentine

A school that's been payed 12.000 Euro a year.

I wasn't just only asking about the school, who cares if the school is paid 1 or 2 euros a year? Heck I pay $37 for my public education 2 years ago and they don't teach us this kind of cop-outs.

I am more interested in what the school has taught you. Maybe you misunderstood the content presented.

[Anh_Minh]

Is it a school for kids with "special" needs? Is that why it's so expensive?

[Jill Valentine]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I wasn't just only asking about the school, who cares if the school is paid 1 or 2 euros a year? Heck I pay $37 for my public education 2 years ago and they don't teach us this kind of cop-outs.

I am more interested in what the school has taught you. Maybe you misunderstood the content present.

How could i misunderstand when i passed the wierd test.
I didn't only learn this at school. I saw it with my own eyes. There's family members from my step fathers side. One of his sisters is married to her uncle and she's got alot of kid's, and they don't really look what you'd say a normal kid would look like, while other members of the family who aren't married to their family, has normal looking kids. Which they admitted them self's is wierd. But coincidently there were more situations like this in the family's who were married to their family's, kid's turned out like that.

[Vexx]

You're mistaking anecdotal evidence or a few experiences for some sort of Grand Rule. Did they not teach science or statistics at this school?

[Jill Valentine]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Is it a school for kids with "special" needs? Is that why it's so expensive?

O.O Excuse me, but no.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jill Valentine

How could i misunderstand when i passed the wierd test.
I didn't only learn this at school. I saw it with my own eyes. There's family members from my step fathers side. One of his sisters is married to her uncle and she's got alot of kid's, and they don't really look what you'd say a normal kid would look like, while other members of the family who aren't married to their family, has normal looking kids. Which they admitted them self's is wierd. But coincidently there were more situations like this in the family's who were married to their family's, kid's turned out like that.

The test is set by the school, of course if you apply the content taught, you will pass! Goodness! That is obvious! If a school teaches science, it will test science. If a school teaches crap, it will test crap.

Maybe you are talking about disabilities as the cause of their looks. Children with cerebral palsy look different from others, in retrospect, uglier.

But I still want to know what did they teach you, because the way your presented it, it sounds completely illogical and has little scientific basis. How the heck can cousins marry and ALWAYS, or have a VERY HIGH CHANCE or producing and ugly spawn?

Higher chance =/= very high chance.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Meo, do me a favour. Explain to him the triggers of recessive genes using the concept of dormant and active genes influencing human physical traits at the point of fetal development. My old biology encyclopedia is currently buried somewhere in my room and I am too lazy to look for it.

Justsomeguy - The things he explain might be a little complex, but try to absorb it. Remember to give him a cookie if he does.

How exactly is this relevant? I'm a biology major, so I know this stuff already. My point is that inbreeding will concentrate the alleles already in the breeding pool into individuals, and that if there are no "negative" traits in the breeding stock, or if any are selected out, then positive traits can be concentrated too. Recessive, dominant, and dormant genes are irrelevant.

No cookies or reps.

[milan kyuubi]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

But only since i don't have a hot sister to test this theory on

Me neather.

[AnimeFan188]

"Regarding the revelation that King Tut's mother and father were brother and
sister, Pusch said. "Inbreeding is not an advantage for biological or genetic
fitness. Normally the health and immune system are reduced and malformations
increase," he said."

See:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...-boy-king-tut/

[Sides]

Originally Posted by ShadowSeed

Inbreeding makes blood related sicknesses more probable to pass down generations. Tissue mishaps are also more common within closed spawns. (A slang term for an inbred child.) It's because humans are made to blend with each other to gain the correct middle ground and balance the certain spots in each other's DNA, making each generation more "capable" and more balanced.

Of course, this is the opposite in reality. Humans are getting dumber, not smarter.

I would say more specilised, rather than dumber. Inbreeding mean less genetic material to play with. If the human race does eventually manages to became a godlike creature, then inbreeding shoulding be a problem. However until then inbreeding mean that your descendants will be in a disadvantage for the race to become the supreme being.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I think you're using the wrong term.

Interbreeding - breeding with a different race (or species)
Inbreeding - breeding with a relative

oh, my mistake

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Sides

I would say more specilised, rather than dumber. Interbreeding mean less genetic material to play with. If the human race does eventually manages to became a godlike creature, then interbreeding shoulding be a problem. However until then interbreeding mean that your descendants will be in a disadvantage for the race to become the supreme being.

I think you're using the wrong term.

Interbreeding - breeding with a different race (or species)
Inbreeding - breeding with a relative

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

So, I can shoot laser beams from my eyes, because my brother and sister married each other? :P

Seriously, though, X-men has done more to twist what "mutation" really means. Mutation is actually rarely a good thing, and it's usually small. Mutation is simply something that is a little bit different, and because we are generally adapted to live in our environment, a mutant will have more difficulty doing so, because their red blood cells are a bit off, or their vision is a bit off, etc.

Over millions of years, though, one of those mutations will turn out to be slightly better, and thus more desirable to a mate, and thus it spreads to the population.

In short, we're evolving really damn slow, and you aren't likely to see people flying or shooting energy beams in our lifetime. :P

We missed the chance in the 1950s to 1980s before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[HayashiTakara]

The only reason why inbreeding is outlawed in most countries is because it increases the chances of a recessive family gene to appear. Because it's been that way for so long it's been integrated into society as a taboo of moral consequences.

Depending on your family history of genetic disorder, its a high possibility that the child would be perfectly healthy.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

We missed the chance in the 1950s to 1980s before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Argh, radiation doesn't work either!

*cries*

Although, depending on what kind of ability you are going for, genetic splicing has possibilities, as long as the new "powers" confirm to physical laws. :P

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Jill Valentine

Do you need proof? Like photo's of cousins/brothers/sis's who're married to each other and see their kids I know that because i witnessed it and i was also taught about it at school.

Hmmm, I can show you pictures of hundreds (of thousands) of children that were not born "normal"
but their parents NOT being bloodrelated

Where does that fit in your education?

HayashiTakara's explinatian is probably the most logical to follow

in a genepool without genetic defects (yes impossible but just for example) the bloodline wouldn't matter a rat's ass

[Anh_Minh]

The problem with inbreeding in humans (other than the cultural taboo) is that it's done so haphazardly. I mean, dog and cattle breeders can put it to good use, so why can't we? Because we don't breed humans the way we do dogs. We have no real plan of what we want to breed, no clear criterion of what constitutes desirable trait. Look at the most famous example of systematic inbreeding... royalty and nobility. What makes royal blood so desirable? That they had a spectacularly successful ancestor way back when? What kind of basis is that? Also, I have nothing against gardeners, but what's the rationale behind introducing them to the bloodline? Is it any surprise that you end up with blue blood? (Which, despite the positive connotations, is a defect, not a quality. Unless you like the look it gives you. Rule 34 dictates that some people do.)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The problem with inbreeding in humans (other than the cultural taboo) is that it's done so haphazardly. I mean, dog and cattle breeders can put it to good use, so why can't we? Because we don't breed humans the way we do dogs. We have no real plan of what we want to breed, no clear criterion of what constitutes desirable trait. Look at the most famous example of systematic inbreeding... royalty and nobility. What makes royal blood so desirable? That they had a spectacularly successful ancestor way back when? What kind of basis is that? Also, I have nothing against gardeners, but what's the rationale behind introducing them to the bloodline? Is it any surprise that you end up with blue blood? (Which, despite the positive connotations, is a defect, not a quality. Unless you like the look it gives you. Rule 34 dictates that some people do.)

You know, that first line made me suddenly think of "splicing cat genes with humans to create catgirls".

Besides, royal blood is just like any other blood : human. I don't see what is the hype about it though.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The problem with inbreeding in humans (other than the cultural taboo) is that it's done so haphazardly. I mean, dog and cattle breeders can put it to good use, so why can't we? Because we don't breed humans the way we do dogs. We have no real plan of what we want to breed, no clear criterion of what constitutes desirable trait. Look at the most famous example of systematic inbreeding... royalty and nobility. What makes royal blood so desirable? That they had a spectacularly successful ancestor way back when? What kind of basis is that? Also, I have nothing against gardeners, but what's the rationale behind introducing them to the bloodline? Is it any surprise that you end up with blue blood? (Which, despite the positive connotations, is a defect, not a quality. Unless you like the look it gives you. Rule 34 dictates that some people do.)

Royals and Nobility are a very poor example for selective breeding, as less traits than preserving family status and connections were sought (regardless if the bride was ugly or not).
And I don't see how you'd see blue blood as a defect, since it only provided a kin indicator as well as a socio-economic marker, comparable to hair color, make-up and clothing.

And actually Human Selective Breeding has name: Eugenics, as well as long history, and varying means of application. Today the fashion is mainly toward the elimination of handicaps traits, but there's also a significant market for gametes from donors with specific traits.