Should we interbreed with our family members?

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

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,

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

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

but the ones that are benefitial are passed on and eventually become widespread among a population. That is evolution.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

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

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

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..

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.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

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

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.

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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!

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by AndyClaw

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!

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?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland

What about the fact that humans are getting taller,

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.

Originally Posted by Watts

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.

It can result in less complexity too.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.