A slightly different pairing question.

[SummerWolf]

Inbreeding x Inbreeding does't count. You get different gene pools.

No, I didn't overlook your argument. I DID argued against it.

A Haemophiliac is XcXc. In which case, whether she's a sibling of her lover or not isn't even taken into the equation. She will ALWAYS pass on the gene. The interesting case here is the CARRIER, which is where people assume the diseases with incest will occur. The carrier, in reality, have about the same chances I proposed earlier. In the first filial generation, the chances of them getting the disease in a normal population is quite small. Not so higher than the chance you'd get from marrying a girl who might or might not have the disease gene. For instance, if your family's gene pool has NO carrier in it, marrying your sister is perfectly safe as far as genetics go.

And you missed MY point : Is it right to force a sister from loving her brother, whereas you have NO idea of knowing whether she's a carrier, which is a single allele and acts fast anyway, while at the same time, a carrier can marry the person she loves freely? The genetics chances are the same, even somewhat lopsided in the favor of the sister, and the only thing that bar it from happening is society.

(I think it's moot point to argue Leaf and Nanna further. You have your opinions, I have mine, and we've presented them to death already)

[Gunlord100]

Er, if I might add my two cents in here, while I am most certainly not a biologist of the venerable Ms. Summerwolf's caliber, I do vaguely recall another reason beyond the liklihood of birth defects that inbreeding leads to over successive generations.

In evolutionary terms, I believe the social onus to marry outside of one's family may come from several exigencies. One is that in prehistoric times, I believe, before civilization and the rise of cities, it was often in a clan or tribe's best interest to have its sons and daughters marry into another clan, because that way, through the social custom of marriage, an alliance could be cemented between the two tribes.

Also, in terms of genetics...again, I'm certainly no master of biology (I'm in AP Bio right now, getting my ass kicked by the same stuff Summerwolf is master of -_-;;; I STILL have no idea how a ribosome works ;____; ) however, I think that even in terms of the F1 generation, there's a dearth of new genetic material flowing into the family tree. If you have children with your sibling, in terms of genetic material, there's nothing new coming in--it's still just the mother and father's genes getting mixed up, there isn't anybody else providing your kids with nice new genes, even if those kids don't turn out to be deformed in one generation. Now, on this point, I am not so sure...please excuse my most horrendous ignorance and stupidity if I'm wrong ^^;;

If I could add in yet another two cents, I have no problem with incest, so long as the brother and sister are both of age and consenting...*shrugs* But then again, that's just me, and with a sense of morality as, um, non-existent as mine, you're better off not listening to me anyways XD;;

[SummerWolf]

You're right on the social mark. Don't forget, however, that another line of thought evolves later on that has siblings marry each other in royal families to 'keep the bloodline pure', in the age where a king's rule is absolute and blood-driven as opposed to ability-driven. So the coin has two sides. XD And I don't mean Europe, really. Think worldwide.

Segregation allows for a deal of genetic opportunities in the F1 generation yet, gunny. Genetic material doesn't flow that fast, and marrying outside is the same as marrying inside : It doesn't guarantee the influx of good materials, no more than the inside guarantee expression of bad materials. Nice new genes can be debated for ages. Making offspring isn't the same as producing cars, you know.

It's not that the influx of new blood means EVERYTHING. Sure, you need it to stave of depression later on, but for the F1 generation, segregation of genes from parental ancestry lines is more than sufficient for genetic variation. You get quite randomized when those genes do the dance of meiosis. And not to mention those damn transposable elements that can pretty much turn genes on and off randomly. XD

(And what are you wondering about ribosomes, gunny? )


ED : From tracking mitochondrial DNA, you'd wonder at how much the gene pool in a given country is linked, too. Everyone get the same mitochondrial DNA from their mothers, who got it from their mothers, et cetera, so it has no bearing on the incest-genetic defect discussion. But it does bring the point of how much we're all related, since some families can actually be traced from a single woman. Not incest in terms of time scale, but it's fun. XD

[North2]

I did get that point, and my point was arguing that it is right to force them away. Carriers can't do anything about their disease (100% victim), but a sister can because it's not even a problem in the first place if she doesn't have a child with her brother (not a victim if she doesn't love her brother in the first place, in which case having the idea that incest is bad would lower the chances).

But whether they're victims or not, I have no idea if I would support hemopheliacs bearing children. What are the symptoms of a hemophiliac anyways?

This is really tough when I have no idea what the hell goes on with genes. If there's the same chance of a brother and sister having children to form a genetic defect as the chance of a girl being a carrier, does that mean it'll double the chance with the sister because she can be a carrier AND she can have the harmful incest gene? Or is it the same disease?

As a side note, I believe it would not be a good day if incest was accepted in society. I know it wasn't part of the argument in the first place so it's not even part of the debate, but in the end it would be the correct decision for society to treat incest as a terrible thing. If incest in the first generation was accepted, then that would mean the second generation would halfway follow. By halfway, I mean it will never be accepted by law because of the higher chance of genetic disease, but there will be lawbreakers in the name of love or whatever alternate reason that there may be, and children will be born.

[SummerWolf]

Quick reply, I gotta run. Will write long one later.

Carriers ARE NOT 100%. Carriers just carry it. They are NOT afflicted with the disease. That is why I make two cases. They have A CHANCE of passing it on, that's all. For qualitative traits, non-carrier doesn't even have the gene.

Read my point again : IF the sister isn't a carrier, is it right? IF a carrier can marry with the chance that her child might carry it, why should a sister from a family with no records of diseases whatsoever (nice guarantee for a qualitative disease) be prevented, using the same argument?

Having the idea that homosexuality is bad doesn't stop it. You can't predict human behavior that way.

There's no 'incest genes'. What you get is lower vigor.

[North2]

Ehh, I meant the carriers themselves can't do anything about it. In other words, they are 100% victims of fate in that they are carriers. No matter what they do they'll be a carrier. Sisters aren't victims unless they love their brother.

Human behavior can generally be predicted that way in a broader scale. If something is considered bad, people tend to move away from it. If not then this world would be halfway chaos because it wouldn't matter if something's bad or not.

Homosexuality is actually what I derived this conclusion from. Homosexuality not being stopped is the exact same reason that second generation incest will not be stopped. Homosexuality has also increased in percentage compared to the olden days where it was considered satanic. It's not just from homosexuals being more open to public so there's more being counted. There also used to be some homosexuals that's forced to live 'straight' although they were homosexuals by nature, and few would just not have sex at all for believing so strongly that homosexuality is an evil thing. Granted, there is no proof of that but logically I don't see a reason why there wouldn't be because sexual desire can be overcome.

I don't believe homosexuality is bad, but I do believe that harm in the gene pool would be a bad thing so the exact same logic applies.

I'm asking the questions because I don't understand your post , sorry . I read it very carefully already.

Edit: What does lower vigor mean? And are you saying that a sister with no family record of disease has absolutely no chance of 'creating' one through incest?

Edit2: Wow, the whole banner on top is filled with advertisements on genetics. What are the chances?

Oh wait, never mind. I just clicked on the 'Ads on Google' thing =P.

[Iris]

North2 said:

Homosexuality has also increased in percentage compared to the olden days where it was considered satanic.

I'm quite sure I've read about homosexuality being socially acceptable in either ancient Greece or ancient Rome, although I can't remember which and the specifics elude me at the moment.

[SummerWolf]

There is always a chance for everything. But there is a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY low chance of a genetic disease happening in families with no records of it AT ALL. Note the at all. You can't create genes unless it's mutation, and then it's totally random.

Why is a sister a victim if she is NOT a carrier? She has no chance of passing the disease either way. Why is she a victim?

Homosexuality : There are still homosexuals who live the way they did in the centuries past, in fear, which I believe no one has the right to keep a person from loving each other. And back then, there were records of open homosexuality, despite church laws against it. It's not considered satanic, it's just considered a sin. It's not like incest in on the same level as homosexuality either. I don't think siblings avoid incest because of laws and society, most of the time it's because they have no interest, which is NOT the case with homosexuals. The percentage of guys wanting other guys is colossally huge compared with sisters wanting their brothers.

It's okay. Genetics can be hard to understand without charts if you don't know it.


Edit : Iris-sama, I believe Spartans used to encourage homosexual behaviour in their troops.

[Iris]

SummerWolf said:

Edit : Iris-sama, I believe Spartans used to encourage homosexual behaviour in their troops.

Yes, that sounds like what I was thinking of.

[SummerWolf]

Not to mention that a whole heck of Greek myths are filled with homosexuals and bisexuals. XD Hyacinthus, anyone?

[Jet Enduro]

Hmm what happened to my post? Oh well.. Yeah I thought it was something along those lines.

I usually try to stay away from religion(no offense) but I just dont like certain opinions forced upon me.

[North2]

'creating' meant causing.

I also believe that nobody has the right to tear lovers apart, but only if it's not causing harm. If incest can cause problems even from taking 2 generations of incest to do so, then the logic applies. Homosexuals can do whatever the hell they want for all I'm concerned.

I just give up on the genes...from learning 1 thing and probably interpreting it wrong, I get 4 more questions. Right now I count 9 areas that I don't really understand and around 30 questions built up.

[Iris]

Behold the power of Google.

www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/ViewByCulture.htm

I haven't spent enough time looking at this source to verify the authenticity, however.

[SummerWolf]

And I say again that it doesn't cause diseases. Incest does not cause diseases. It just gives higher chance to it if the family gene pool allows for it. If it doesn't, it's as safe as random mating, within F1 and F2 anyway. And I don't think brothers and sisters would keep loving each other for damn three generations straight, normally. We're talking humans, not programs.

What you get is not disease, but simply lowered health as a whole.

Couples indulging in incest probably knows the risk with all the community going down on them. And base on that logic, why is a couple with OBVIOUS harm in the first generation allowed?

By your logic....

A carrier is a 100% victim of fate. She can marry whoever she loves even if she is has the potential to cause harm for all resulting generations.

An affected person is a 100% of fate. She can marry whoever she loves even if all her children gets a very high chance of getting the disease, and if not, then a 100% chance of making them carriers.

An incestuous sister is wrong because she has a choice, even if her choice won't cause any harm within the first two generations.

How fair is that?

[North2]

I think lowered health as a whole is really bad. I don't know by how much, but that's basically what disease does to you other than some that'll just kill you.

That wasn't my logic. The whole idea is whether it's avoidable or not. A carrier really has no choice other than to not reproduce at all. She can choose whoever she wants because it just won't matter one bit. A sister can simply choose anyone other than her brother and still reproduce.

In ALL fairness, disease is mostly just not factored in the equation. What I mean is that society has accepted carriers of a disease to have children because she has no way around it other than to live in seclusion and die without ever bearing children.

The whole deal with incest is the same logic going the other way around. If some sisters can have children with their brother but some can't, then how is that fair? It wouldn't be. So society decided to ban all incest. It could have been the other way around and accepted all incest, but it is avoidable by finding someone else.

If there is truly no harm from inbreeding AT ALL, then I guess it's just a social barrier but it'd be a hell of a tough one to break. I'll honestly be disgusted if my children decided to have kids with each other...my first idea would be 'why couldn't you two have chosen anyone else?'.