Should we interbreed with our family members?
 

In case you had no idea why, the reason we are not supposed to "marry our cousins" is because of genetic mutations which would be passed down upon our children. If everyone in my family has a genetic mutation, this mutation will not be apparent in my children, because when you get married, your husband's or wife's genes make sure that no mutation is passed down. For example, if "ABCDEFG" is normal, and my family has the mutated "ABCDEFF" and my wife's family has the mutated "AACDEFG" then our child will still be perfectly normal, and have "ABCDEFG" because the correct genes over-ride the incorrect ones. If I married my sister, we both have "ABCDEFF" and our child would have the mutated genes.

I am getting into a question about genetic mutation that I have, and I just want this one question answered. To have mutation-selection theory work, you need to have mutations. If you have no mutations, then you will never have anything to select, and no evolutionary progress can be made for a species. If evolution is a good thing that makes species progress forward, then...

Would interbreeding with our family members speed up the evolutionary process?

How can random genetic mutations last more than one generation and make an impact on the evolution of a species when the two-gene system fixes all mutations?

How can evolution bypass the overwhelming bad side affects of genetic mutations and cause a random mutation to benefit a species?

So the scientific question presented is, "Should I marry my cousin to further the human race?"

I am seeking a scientific answer to these questions because I have never seen the evolutionist's viewpoint on this topic. Please do not get off the topic of genetic mutation.

You do not need to know what I think in order to answer my question, but I thought I would give my own belief on the history of genetic mutation.

In general, I agree that mutation-selection theory or "evolution" is a completely VALID scientific model for the evolution of species, but I would scientifically disagree that the mutation-selection model can REALISTICALLY produce or evolve species, and I believe that mutations are much more responsible for the DE-evolution of the species of the world.

I also believe that these scientific beliefs of mine line up with my faith that the human species was created perfect. This means that shortly after the perfect creation, marrying within the family was perfectly healthy. This is how Adam and Eve's sons and daughters could have made a family with each other. Anyway, I believe that today, the human race has accumulated many many harmful mutations since the day of perfect creation, and this is why today we cannot marry within the family without expecting horrible consequences.

I know everyone is just waiting for me to respond to this thread, so I'm going to.

Inbreeding is something that has been practiced in pretty much every culture in every time period. Royal families still do it in order to keep their bloodlines pure.

Marrying a distant cousin is not going to give you two-headed, green children. It's when people start marrying their siblings, first cousins, aunts and uncles that problems start to arise.

In the grand overview of evolutionary theory, inbreeding will not accelerate human evolution, and if anything could detriment it.
Evolution requires that only mutations which allow the organism to better perform in its environment will be passed on. However, these beneficial mutations must be passed on to a larger population for them to have any significance.

If, for example, there are 2 mutations which are in 2 different families, which when combined are beneficial, but when kept isolated is detrimental, then it would be disastrous.

My final thoughts on this are that the question is too lacking in details and full of assumed value judgements which scientists cannot address, making it difficult to reply. I am not even sure if the previous paragraphs I wrote even addressed the question well enough.
I think that your question is also operating with the assumption that genetic traits are easily determined by just pairs of genes, which is folly. Example:
Huh?

EDIT:
Addressing another of your questions:
It does because it does. Bad mutations are killed off, and good mutations live. You seem to be assuming that most mutations are detrimental.

Just a tidbit from history about royal families, there are a lot of horror stories about the bad side affects of the royal families maintaining their blood line, and some think that this spawned some mythology (aka Minotaurs) LOLOL that last part is just a speculation that I heard of once.

Double Post:
Good point. I am assuming that most mutations are detrimental. Isn't this well known fact?

Double Post:
Okay, I learned that we have two of every one of our genes, so having two parents makes sure that the bad genes don't cause any problems.

I am also assuming that this two-gene system eliminates the bad genes. In retrosepct I think that is incorrect. Yey? Ney?

No. That is an assumption. We don't really know if a mutation is good or bad. Of course, this is again making a value judgement about something which should be looked at through the lens of objectivity.

No, seriously, disregarding all values, I can say that most genetic mutations are harmful. I mean, isn't this obvious when you think about all the tragically deformed children who are born?

You know, we are not exactly DNA clone of our parents. Mutation doesn't have to have a detrimental or beneficial effects.

I see absolutely no reason why a person should interbreed with one of their own kin. It's kind of unnatural anyways.

You're NOT SUPPOSED to stay within your own family's genetic pool. Look what happens.

I'm not aware of any royal families that still do this today. In fact, even the historical cases of inbreeding in European monarchies can be traced down to a handful of instances and they're all documented.

What happens exactly? It's a fairly common practice here in the South. Not as common as people think, but it does happen. Maybe not all mutations are easily detectible or visible, but I know plenty of people who have married distant relatives with (seemingly) no ill effects.

Double Post:
Princess Diana and Prince Charles were cousins.

Have YOU seen all the tragically deformed children?

You would have to know of every instance of a mutation throughout human hisatory to be able to say that most are detrimental. As of now, I find it highly improbable that you contain such knowledge.

Magi, so are you saying that we are not quite EXACTLY the same species as our parents?

IF your answer is yes, than a question for you Magi is if these slight mutations go away when we find another human to have a child with. I am wondering about that.

If you are talking about variation within the species, like hair color, then that is irrelevent to evolution completely (just making sure we are on the same page, you probably already know that).

I would just like to say: from a genetic standpoint, the term "species" is almost as ambiguous(but not quite) as the term "race."

I am not talking about cousins specifically, really, because the farther away from your direct family members you go, the less chance of a mutation you have.

In fact, you COULD in theory marry your sister and have normal children.

I am talking about when the mutation DOES happen.

Okay, to answer you question about the bad side affects. Think of it this way, because it is supposed to be obvious. I am not trying to possess some supreme knowledge, because this should be a common fact of nature. If I marry my sister, and have a baby, which means there is a VERY HIGH chance to pass on a genetic mutation, is my baby more likely to have a super high IQ or to be mentally retarded?

There is definitely data existing to answer that question, and this is what I am talking about. Why do you think the word "MUTATE" has such a bad connotation?

That's a resonable deduction, I guess.
The problem is, they don't go away. Although you do have to remember, that another half of the child's DNA come from your partner.

Well, for the sake of the topic, try not to confuse the term species and make that an issue. Lets just say that if a genetic mutation occurs, then you are no longer the same species. Lets just pretend that this is the defenition for now, because it works for me. Uhhh..... ok? LOL.

It depends upon the nature of the mutation, the origin of the mutation, the importance of the mutation, the environment in which the organism is living in, ad nauseum.
You are being too caught up in statistics and sweeping generalizations. An honest scientist will look at the particulars and the details as much as they can.

Mutate has a bad connotation because that is what the media did to it.

So here are my three questions, one of which has been answered.

Would interbreeding with our family members speed up the evolutionary process?

(How can random genetic mutations last more than one generation and make an impact on the evolution of a species when the two-gene system fixes all mutations?) Answered: the two-gene system does not make mutations go away, so the mutations are not fixed.

How can evolution bypass the overwhelming bad side affects of genetic mutations and cause a random mutation to benefit a species?

This WAS answered. I said that it would not.

Because the mutations that are detrimental are killed off.

If anything, it would slow it down and muck up the gears.

To put things in perspective, you only need to keep in mind that majority of known species that existed in the ancient world are already extinct.

Okay, well here is what I say about your viewpoint of mutation. A mutation is a mutation is a mutation. They come from ALL KINDS of sources, but they all produce the same thing: a random effect. Your theory about mutation (we need to factor in "ad nauseum" conditions to see what the true result would be) sounds good, but I am not talking about IN REAL LIFE, not in theory, but in practice. You can take any species, subject it to high amounts of mutation, and collect the data. The data will produce mostly negative results.

About "the media". I could just as logically state that misguided scientists around the world who are fostering a psuedo-scientific lie have painted a good connotative picture of mutations which has warped your viewpoint of the true original connotations of the word. I won't say that though, as it is irrelevent. Oops, I said it anyway. Disregard that.

And I AM talking about in practice.
In real life, the ratio of mutations to generations is significantly lower than you would propose for your experiment.

BTW, I am deliberately taking a view opposing yours because I don't think you are looking at this matter in the right way to really benefit yourself or your attempts at apologetics, if you will.

About the need to subject the mutations to a larger population group so that the mutations can work together. I get what you are saying, but a question... can these independently useless mutations wait for something to make them useful, or do they go away?

Double Post:
Oh, and by the way, this is mostly a learning experience for me, not really making any points on my end except to clear road blocks. I already know what I THINK the answers to my questions are, that is why I am not answering them but asking them hehe.

Double Post:
GAHH I need to go to sleep. Now. No more chatter. I need sleep so I can go to work tonight. Reply all you want I might check in later.

If you already assume that a mutation gets passed on from the originator to further generations: they will remain "useless" until they either benefit or detriment the organisms. In which case they will either remain within the gene pool, or they will will be killed.

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.

That depends on what you mean by "bad mutations" or "good mutations"

I mean, in my view a prehensile tail would be an awesome mutation, but the doctors at the birthing of your incestuous lovechild would probably violently disagree.

Anyway, your understanding of what "evolution" means is a huge failure. I just wanted you to know that. LET'S ALL HUMP OUR SISTERS, IT'S A RACE TO THE EVOLUTIONARY OMEGA POINT

By restricting the size of the breeding population, you will likely see a drastic change in the new population through rapid genetic drift and the founder's effect (rather than natural selection). The new population may exhibit traits that seem at odds with their survival. If the population doesn't grow over the generations, genes will become fixed and the genetic variance suffers. Not a good thing, as a single genetic weakness may wipe out an entire population.

That's because evolution does not favor success. For every success or helpful mutation there is literally millions of harmful mutations that occur. Evolution isn't always one step upwards towards "progress".

Watts, I think you're confusing evolution with one of the processes behind it.

Evolution is the end result of mutation and natural selection. A lot of mutations aren't benefitial, but the ones that are benefitial are passed on and eventually become widespread among a population. That is evolution.

I think it's one of those terms like 'accelerate'. Generally, when you think of acceleration, you think of something speeding up. But, by the definition of the world, slowing down is also acceleration and words like 'deceleration' are pretty much pointless.

Thus, evolution does not favor success. Nor does evolution equal "progress". Yet everybody, including yourself generally assumes this. Why?

Are you some kind of believer in eugenics? Harmful mutations are passed on just as beneficial ones are. The only way they are not passed on is if they're breeded out of somebody's heritage. Or we just isolate or exterminate people with harmful mutations so they can't pass their DNA onwards.

That's why evolution is a product of natural selection and mutation. An organism is born with a benefitial mutation, with regards to its environment, that organism is more likely to survive and breed. A number of its offspring will have this mutation as well, meanwhile, the ones without the benefitial mutation or ones with harmful mutations might breed, but probably won't encounter much net reproductive success because they're not suited for the environment.

Generally, when harmful mutations express themselves on the phenotype it is selected against, whether it's environmental or, in the case of humans, social pressures.

Harmful mutations may be passed, yes, but they generally don't express themselves in the majority of the population.

You're confusing evolution with simple genetic mutation. Yes, mutations occur, but typically they're selected against. Evolution occurs when a trait becomes dominant in a population. Harmful mutations, because they're harmful generally don't have enough reproductive viability to reach that point.

That's scientific hyperbole. There's a multitude of hereditary and genetic diseases that while aren't considered beneficial, do not impede a person from living a healthy fufilling life. Like colorblindness. That's just eugenics thinking at work. It isn't always the healthy or smart that survive. Humans are not like animals that have to adapt to their environment. Humans can fundamentally change their environment. And we have. And we will.

Meanwhile you have genetic diseases like cancer that do impede with a person's longevity, yet still most people are able to breed and pass on their DNA before the mutations causing damage to their DNA kills them.

Social pressure only exists in certain cases. Usually most parents are worried about downs syndrome. This doesn't necessarily stop them from breeding, but it's a factor in considering it. However, parents would rarely choose not to have children because their children might be colorblind.

The number of harmful mutations outweighs the beneficial mutations by far. Cancer has proliferated nicely since the 1920's when it was hardly heard of or known about. Much less as common per capita. I bet that someday in the future 1/3rd of the population will have cancer.

No, I'm not. Look at the dictionary definition that RR posted. Evolution is the process of change that results in more complexity, and only sometimes (as in rarely) results in beneficial traits. Again, you're just assuming that evolution is a step upwards.

Take a good look at a list of genetic diseases. Most of which you'll find were completely unheard of 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and so on. And not because we didn't know anything about it. But because they became more common in the general population as time passed.

From what I can tell, the same environmental factors that are somehow poisoning us with such a high amount of cancer lately might also be causing an excess of genetic mutations to us humans and also increasing genetic diseases.

I don't know any specific data on whether we are more healthy now or 100 years ago though, but from what rumors I have heard, we are coming down with more defects now. So don't take my word for it!

My parents are second cousins and I was born with mild autism.... weither the blood was the cause... I am not sure. My mother had a learning disability, but my father is a genius mathematician... so who knows.

Take a look at expected mortality rates from 100 years ago and compare them to today's and tell me that we're worse off.

Sure, we may be dying from getting fat when we're 65 instead of living until we're 75, but how many people do you know that have died of smallpox or influenza?

Think of it this way: suppose being taller gives you an edge. If two tall people marry, they get to push for tallness while having that gene-checking to get rid of some horrible mutations.

I'm pretty sure this is due to diet. I'm 70% sure I remember reading this somewhere: people used to be taller, got shorter when agriculture first started out (humans turned to it out of desperation and weren't that good at it), and now with excellent nutrition during childhood, we're catching up again.

It can result in less complexity too.

Food for thought.

It is still in current practice to marry first cousins in Iraq (I believe most other middle eastern countries do this as well).

The parents choose who their daughter marries, they look for any available cousins first (preferably first cousins) and only if there is no possible cousins available for marriage do they look outside of their family for a candidate for their daughter. The daughter has the final say whether or not to marry the possible candidate.

Quite a bit different from the way we do things here in the western world, at least on a large scale.