Should we interbreed with our family members?

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:

Quote:

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?

Huh?

EDIT:
Addressing another of your questions:

Quote:

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

It does because it does. Bad mutations are killed off, and good mutations live. You seem to be assuming that most mutations are detrimental.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by AndyClaw

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by AndyClaw

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?

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.

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

Originally Posted by AndyClaw

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 a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by AndyClaw

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?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by AndyClaw

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

This WAS answered. I said that it would not.

Quote:

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

Because the mutations that are detrimental are killed off.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by AndyClaw

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by AndyClaw

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?

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.

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

Originally Posted by Devo

Prove it.

And royal inbreeding wasn't done to keep the bloodline pure so much as to keep the wealth within those families.

What are you asking Alice to prove?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

Your point about bloodlines makes no sense. Inbreeding in the Royal Families doesn't have to do with any sort of "purity", it has to do with economics. In order to keep power and wealth within the same small group of people they married cousins.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devo

I'd consider it to be quite a good reaction to keep people from propagating/exhibiting genetic mutations and defects.

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.

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