Married twins
Ellatrue:
Actually, inbreeding like that can cause very serious defects, because it drastically increases the chances of those defects occurring in offspring. It isn't a myth, but it isn't guaranteed that it will happen, either, and the chances just keep increasing the more you do it. It's possible that the offspring will be perfectly fine, yes, but it's also possible that the inbreeding will cause problems.
nil: wtf were you trying to say there?
snowbawl:
Quote from: Ellatrue on 2008 April 26, 22:38:49
nil: wtf were you trying to say there?
That his/her last name is Jessop and he/she is from Texas? What are you saying, nil?
seelindarun:
Quote from: nil on 2008 April 26, 10:10:31
The unlucky ones will still fade away unfortunately, but the family can still survive well as long as the society and its other members don't play the "saint" and penalise the involved and the unlucky ones.
o_O I don't know what society you live among, but the society I live in doesn't think it's too cool to just let the unlucky ones "fade away". It actually spends quite a bit of money to try to treat them, because that's more, y'know, humane. What's more, recessive genes don't disappear from the pool, even if you repeatedly euthanise the afflicted. Healthy children can inherit defective genes "silently" and pass them on.
Incest as a one-time case isn't the end of the world, but society has a pretty justifiable interest in discouraging it as a practice.
talysman:
Quote from: Ellatrue on 2008 April 26, 22:38:49
Actually, inbreeding like that can cause very serious defects, because it drastically increases the chances of those defects occurring in offspring. It isn't a myth, but it isn't guaranteed that it will happen, either, and the chances just keep increasing the more you do it. It's possible that the offspring will be perfectly fine, yes, but it's also possible that the inbreeding will cause problems.
See, for me, the word "cause" means that the defects didn't exist beforehand. Which wrong. Inbreeding doesn't produce defects ex nihilo or damage genes in any way. It selects for already-existing genes. Breeding with the wrong person who *isn't* related can produce the same effects.
J. M. Pescado:
Quote from: seelindarun on 2008 April 26, 23:23:37
o_O I don't know what society you live among, but the society I live in doesn't think it's too cool to just let the unlucky ones "fade away". It actually spends quite a bit of money to try to treat them, because that's more, y'know, humane. What's more, recessive genes don't disappear from the pool, even if you repeatedly euthanise the afflicted. Healthy children can inherit defective genes "silently" and pass them on.
Recessive genes don't "disappear", but it IS possible to exterminate them, and quite quickly, if you set your mind to it. If you euthanise anyone afflicted with the problem, you will be applying selective pressure against that gene. If you extend this to sterilizing all of their relatives as well, either with or without testing for the gene's presence, regardless of whether they express the problem or not the problem will go away quite quickly. In the absence of selective pressure, however, gene frequencies will remain the same. With an obviously defective gene like this, allowing the afflicted to reproduce has extreme detrimental effects on the gene pool.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page