Yes, your children would be X-Men. In all seriousness, evolution has stopped, for the human race. Instead of the species Homo Sapiens changing to suit his enviroment, man now shapes his environment to suit him. We no longer need to evolve, because our environment is not hostile, and we openly defy the notion of survival of the fittest. By keeping alive those members of the human race who are not physically ideal, we have short-circuited the evolutionary process. In every way that we can, we have ensured that evolution no longer applies to us.

Before we go any further, promise me that this topic has nothing to do with Inteligent Design. I beg of you, promise me that. I'm starting to get horrible sensations of Deja Vu. If you have an agenda that you aren't discussing, then I would ask you to reveal it now.

Is this true? I don't believe it is. What about the fact that humans are getting taller, or the fact that some people are now being born without an appendix?

Does a species ever stop evolving?

Soluzar is exactly right. Mutations occur randomly regardless of whether humans can control their environment. The earth itself is pretty radioactive and then there's cosmic radiation. Both of these can cause spontaneous mutations with no actual NEED for adaptation. So, you might get a situation where in some people, the appendix is missing. Since humans never needed that anyway, the loss of that organ makes no real difference to their lives except maybe for a slight risk to health if it ruptures. But because humans can easily cure complications caused by a ruptured appendix, evolution won't filter out those who have this weakness (i.e letting them die while the ones lacking an appendix live).

Humans can also compensate for people with physical and mental disabilities too, so these people will not die out despite being technically weaker and less able to survive in the wild. I think the reason why humans are growing taller (notably Asians in particular) is because of different, more Western-style diets that give them better basic nutrition when they're younger. I don't see any environmental need for them to be taller, so I don't think it would just happen except by accident.

What are you asking Alice to prove?

I dont understand how anyone could really believe interbreeding would be beneficial to humanity in any way. The only reason we reproduce the way we do is for the diversity. That diversity in genes is probably one reason why evolution can occur. If you're going to start reproducing with your own blood you completely go against that.

All you'll get is the same thing, over and over again. Degrading more and more every time the bad genes are carried down again. With nothing new introduced to them eventually they'll be useless and the thing dies. These kind of mutations are not the kind of thing that leads to evolution. These kind of mutations are the result of bad genes getting passed down and becoming worse and worse over time.

I'm no expert, so I'm sure there are holes in my argument. But I'm pretty sure most of it is correct. But if anyone knows better let me know. >.>

Oh, and I also agree with the belief that evolution is probably slowed down from humanity hand holding the weak and making its enviroment adapt to it instead of the other way around. But I think that maybe, instead of evolving from those situations that humanity may evolve based on other variables.

Like our dependance on technology or use of it? If we dont need to go out exerting so much energy to hunt prey our bodies could change to reflect that. If we dont need to use alot of physical activity then our bodies could change to reflect that too. I think the only reason we have so much obesity is because our bodies are still acting as they did back when we had to work alot for our food and didnt always have a supply of it. One day maybe that will change and our bodies will get use to always having food and not needing to exert so much energy getting it. Techology is frequently progressing at a very fast pace too. Today we absorb and process alot of information so much faster than we did before. Our brains could start adapting to this as it's taxed with this more and more. Which could lead to our minds evolving over time as well.

Well, I know the OP made the point of VALID/REALISTIC theory in the first post, but I just thought I'd point out that there is no scientific data to support the assumption that any mutation causes a beneficial gain in genetic material. All the mutations we have witnessed in the wild result in the LOSS of genetic material.

That said, there are certain things humans could definitely do without. Things like the appendix - it DOES have a function, but we can clearly live without it quite easily. Thousands of people are doing it right now =/. Or your tonsils. I had mine removed at age 4, and right now is the first time I've been very sick in the past 3 years =/. And the sick I'm talking about is something most people would consider to be pretty mild. Very light fever, plugged up head, mild headache, etc. I'm a pretty healthy dude, despite the fact that part of my immune system has been removed.

I'm not really sure wtf the point of this post was supposed to be. It just kind of evolved into this =/.

I also believe the same as the OP, that humans were created with the perfect genetic material, and as a result of the Fall, we have gradually acquired more and more genetic defects into the human gene pool. And that Adam & Eve's sons and daughters could have "interbred" with no complications in their offspring.

From both a religious & a secular standpoint, I'd have to say NO, interbreeding should not be allowed. It increased the opportunities for unbeneficial genetic mutations. If for some reason it was found that all of the sudden a lot of mutations were starting to be beneficial (ala X-Men....lol....) then from a purely secular standpoint (and being that we don't live in a theocracy....praise the Lord....) I'd have to say that there should be no problem in allowing such a thing.

Umm what. Maybe in North Carolina that is common practice but not in Alabama.

I never said FIRST cousins. They are related, though. Distant cousins or something.

http://experts.about.com/q/British-H...cess-Diana.htm

Also, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles are apparently distant cousins, as well.

Which was exactly my point.

Yes and we all see what Charles looks like. If his face {and ears} aren't the best argument against procreating with blood relatives, I don't know what is.

Also, how is saying "hey British royalty does it so it must be ok" a good argument? I'm sorry but 'royalty' is such a joke.

There doesn't have to be only one reason why people decide to do the things they do. I have heard mentions of "bloodline purity" just as much as, if not more than, the economic and political reasons.
Sure it doesn't make sense. But people believed a lot of wacky things back then.

I just don't see the big deal unless it's very close cousins or siblings. And do you really not know any distant cousins who have married? Because I know quite a few.

I'm not arguing for it, though. I just don't see why everyone is so grossed out over it.

Corrected for scientific accuracy.
Sure its semantics, but its an important detail which I think a lot of people overlook or just don't think about when it comes to incest. Having your brother's child does not increase the chances of mutations being created. Rather the problem is in mutations that already existed being exhibited.

I was going to say, that the chances of a genetic condition that already exists for it pass on under this condition is increase exponentially. It doesn't necessary have to be a mutation to be problematic. Many of the hereditary disease are often passive traits too, but the chance of it manifesting (and passing on)is much higher if your genetic partner is also your close kin.

Yeah, I've actually always felt that we should start to get shorter as time goes on, since there's no reason for the average guy to be 6' tall anymore. I mean, sure, it's nice to be able to reach the top shelf without a problem, but think how much less resources I would need if I was 5' tall instead.

Referring back to the opening post: Your understanding of how genotypes expressing themselves in phenotypes seems somewhat incomplete.

You may have "GACATTCA" but, that's not necessarily what you pass on, invariably. Yes, there are dominant, recessive and codominant genes that probably will be passed on, but you (assuming you are male) will have variations in the genes you pass on, because inside your nutsack there is a veritable alphabet soup of variations of your own genes.

So, yes, even tough all humans have similar phenotypes withs light variations there is actually quite a bit of variation within our genotype. It's also important to remember that there is often more variation within a population than between them. Which is why it is genetically benefitial for humans to engage in "interracial" breeding-- that is to say, it counteracts genetic drift which if led to extremes will cause problems.

Honestly, I don't even know any distant cousins who would be anything but appalled at the notion. Around these parts it may be distantly possible, but it's not even remotely likely. The families involved wouldn't stand for it. It's possible that a relationship might occur, but not marriage.

In Brazil it is not such a big deal to marry your cousins, but, in the end, it is not such a good idea after all.

It is not a good practice. Also, has the person who asked this question ever studied a stint of Russian History?

To quote the Queen, she supported inbreeding to keep the blood line pure, not just for wealth.

But that being said, inbreeding pretty much wiped out a couple generations of European royalty. Queen Victoria was a recessive carrier for hemophilia and her kids had it and with the push for marrying into the family for "pure blood", they went around and around to cousins in other countries until one day, all the males just bled to death. Like gukarma mentioned, they couldn't keep any male heir alive in Russia. Well until the revolution happened and the Bolsheviks took care of that problem for them.

So from a genetic standpoint, inbreeding would increase the likeihood of genetic disorders like Huntingtons, Sickle Cell, etc since family members would more likely to be carriers.

Let me just say that I don't think we should marry our cousins, but was wondering if it would speed up evoution.

Here is a contradiction I see. Someone said that marrying my sister would only bring out the bad mutations that my family has gathered. To me, that is only affirming that most mutations are harmful. A mutation is a mutation, and if the bad ones are being brought out, then that means those are the mutations which are occuring in the human race.