Genetic Abnormalities Debate

[Aristotle]

Since the thread of whether incestral marriage ought to be legal I decided to discuss somewhat similar yet different issue. Since there is an argument for the legalization of incest marriage let us discuss the consequences of such union. From a scientific point of view the problems with inter-breeding is not because of the union itself, but the abnormality that will come about with such unions. Now before I even present scientific evidence proponents of such unions who believe that there is no evidence of any genetic abnormality please present some evidence that there i no scientific proof that inter-breeding will cause any genetic defect.

Here are some things to consider:

1) Using the argument that "it has to be generational" is an unfounded claim because the are studies that have shown that even through the first union the risk is greater and the increase of activity increases the risk of passing on genetic defect.

2) This should've been 1 but proponents must define "generational."

I look forward to this debate

 

[AmyNation]

Do you reject the idea of relations marrying because of the risk of birth defect? I asked this of several other people in the other thread but they all side stepped.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Rumor has it that the entire human species is descended from a family group of about 600 breeding individuals who systematically removed all other human-like species as they spread across the globe.

 

[Aristotle]

Do you reject the idea of relations marrying because of the risk of birth defect? I asked this of several other people in the other thread but they all side stepped.

You didn't address the OP but since you asked, yes I do. On the grounds that a child that is malformed at the expense of a inter-marital union (especially if one is conscious of a malformed child) is nor logical nor justified. Deformities do not extend to mere external limbs. but also an effect upon the nervous system and a plethora of other issues.

 

[Aristotle]

Rumor has it that the entire human species is descended from a family group of about 600 breeding individuals who systematically removed all other human-like species as they spread across the globe.

In this debate I can't go by rumors I need some evidence.

 

[jwoodie]

Do you reject the idea of relations marrying because of the risk of birth defect? I asked this of several other people in the other thread but they all side stepped.

You didn't address the OP but since you asked, yes I do. On the grounds that a child that is malformed at the expense of a inter-marital union (especially if one is conscious of a malformed child) is nor logical nor justified. Deformities do not extend to mere external limbs. but also an effect upon the nervous system and a plethora of other issues.

Why don't you put down the thesaurus and start speaking in logical terms? I have no idea what you mean by an "inter-marital union" not being "justified." For example, do you believe that sexual relations between adult siblings should be a criminal offense?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Rumor has it that the entire human species is descended from a family group of about 600 breeding individuals who systematically removed all other human-like species as they spread across the globe.

In this debate I can't go by rumors I need some evidence.

Start watching PBS and wait, Brother. That's where I saw it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The point is, genetic diversity is not exactly the strong suit of our species and anything we can do using our brains instead of our genitalia to promote sexual diversity should be encouraged, but not necessarily through legislation.

Education is the key to the future of this planet.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Rumor has it that the entire human species is descended from a family group of about 600 breeding individuals who systematically removed all other human-like species as they spread across the globe.

In this debate I can't go by rumors I need some evidence.

Then provide some.

 

[Aristotle]

Do you reject the idea of relations marrying because of the risk of birth defect? I asked this of several other people in the other thread but they all side stepped.

You didn't address the OP but since you asked, yes I do. On the grounds that a child that is malformed at the expense of a inter-marital union (especially if one is conscious of a malformed child) is nor logical nor justified. Deformities do not extend to mere external limbs. but also an effect upon the nervous system and a plethora of other issues.

Why don't you put down the thesaurus and start speaking in logical terms? I have no idea what you mean by an "inter-marital union" not being "justified." For example, do you believe that sexual relations between adult siblings should be a criminal offense?

Just because I use words your not familiar with doesn't mean I am not making sense. Anyway the subject is about genetic abnormalities as cause by family inbreeding. As far as the legality aspect I am not here to discuss that. If you wish to discuss the criminality aspect, make another thread and I will join that one.

 

[Aristotle]

Rumor has it that the entire human species is descended from a family group of about 600 breeding individuals who systematically removed all other human-like species as they spread across the globe.

In this debate I can't go by rumors I need some evidence.

Then provide some.

Provide what? The burden of proof are on those that believe family inbreeding does not cause genetic disorder

 

[AmyNation]

In this debate I can't go by rumors I need some evidence.

Then provide some.

Provide what? The burden of proof are on those that believe family inbreeding does not cause genetic disorder

I already debated this, in two speerate threads. So I have no plans to further argue genetic disorders and inbreeding. However you seem really interested, so I hope someone steps up to debate with you.

 

[Aristotle]

Then provide some.

Provide what? The burden of proof are on those that believe family inbreeding does not cause genetic disorder

I already debated this, in two speerate threads. So I have no plans to further argue genetic disorders and inbreeding. However you seem really interested, so I hope someone steps up to debate with you.

The thread on family inbreeding was moved and I couldn't get access. When you said there is no proof of genetic disorders in family inbreeding I provideo 2 research abstracts that contradicted what you said.

 

[AmyNation]

Provide what? The burden of proof are on those that believe family inbreeding does not cause genetic disorder

I already debated this, in two speerate threads. So I have no plans to further argue genetic disorders and inbreeding. However you seem really interested, so I hope someone steps up to debate with you.

The thread on family inbreeding was moved and I couldn't get access. When you said there is no proof of genetic disorders in family inbreeding I provideo 2 research abstracts that contradicted what you said.

It was deleted due to excessive name calling by another poster. I also provided several links to studies that showed that the chance of birth defect, in cousins whos family has no previous history of inbreeding is nominal, roughly 2% higher. However the pervious thread, and my opinion on the topic doesnt hinge on how much higher the risk of defect is.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In this debate I can't go by rumors I need some evidence.

Then provide some.

Provide what? The burden of proof are on those that believe family inbreeding does not cause genetic disorder

In other words, you know of no evidence to support your beliefs.

 

[jwoodie]

OK, the offspring of closely related individuals have a greater chance of inheriting the same recessive genetic abnormality from both parents. Does anyone disagree with this?

 

[Aristotle]

I already debated this, in two speerate threads. So I have no plans to further argue genetic disorders and inbreeding. However you seem really interested, so I hope someone steps up to debate with you.

The thread on family inbreeding was moved and I couldn't get access. When you said there is no proof of genetic disorders in family inbreeding I provideo 2 research abstracts that contradicted what you said.

It was deleted due to excessive name calling by another poster. I also provided several links to studies that showed that the chance of birth defect, in cousins whos family has no previous history of inbreeding is nominal, roughly 2% higher. However the pervious thread, and my opinion on the topic doesnt hinge on how much higher the risk of defect is.

Present the evidence here. I do research so I am curious.

 

[Aristotle]

Then provide some.

Provide what? The burden of proof are on those that believe family inbreeding does not cause genetic disorder

In other words, you know of no evidence to support your beliefs.

I have evidence but I am calling out those that believe family inbreeding does not cause genetic disorders. If you wish to go back and forth then I will tell you I will bow out because I'm not in the mood. Either engage in this debate or kindly ignore it, please choose.

 

[Aristotle]

OK, the offspring of closely related individuals have a greater chance of inheriting the same recessive genetic abnormality from both parents. Does anyone disagree with this?

define "closely related individuals." Do first cousins fall into this category?

 

[FA_Q2]

Provide what? The burden of proof are on those that believe family inbreeding does not cause genetic disorder

No, the onus is on you as one that makes that claim.

Since the thread of whether incestral marriage ought to be legal I decided to discuss somewhat similar yet different issue. Since there is an argument for the legalization of incest marriage let us discuss the consequences of such union. From a scientific point of view the problems with inter-breeding is not because of the union itself, but the abnormality that will come about with such unions. Now before I even present scientific evidence proponents of such unions who believe that there is no evidence of any genetic abnormality please present some evidence that there i no scientific proof that inter-breeding will cause any genetic defect.

Here are some things to consider:

1) Using the argument that "it has to be generational" is an unfounded claim because the are studies that have shown that even through the first union the risk is greater and the increase of activity increases the risk of passing on genetic defect.

2) This should've been 1 but proponents must define "generational."

I look forward to this debate

If this is the case, I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that there is a zero increase in defects from incestuous coupling. I did not see the original thread here so I have no idea what was said but typically this argument is on the small percentage of such an occurrence and its relation to other genetic disorders. I have some things to say on the legality aspect that I will not post unless your intention is to allow this on this thread. As far as defects resulting from incest, there is clear evidence that such occurs BUT its significance is another story altogether.