Genetic Abnormalities Debate

[Aristotle]

My position here is not to argue the legality of inbreeding, but to argue against the assertion by a member here that inbreeding does cause genetic abnormalities. Most research that I'm aware of, have focused on the Arab population since its common in the culture.

Here is one study: Genetic disorders in the Arab world | BMJ

 

[FA_Q2]

My position here is not to argue the legality of inbreeding, but to argue against the assertion by a member here that inbreeding does cause genetic abnormalities. Most research that I'm aware of, have focused on the Arab population since its common in the culture.

Here is one study: Genetic disorders in the Arab world | BMJ

Well then, the problem with a good debate that you are looking forward to is that we agree and said poster does not seem interested in your thread, YET

I would be interested to see your evidence that single-generation has a higher birth defect rate/genetic disorder rate though. Just to see what you are basing this off of. Again, I agree that it does but adding some sources is always a good thing. The source you cited deals mainly with a generational problem of having a near 50% first cousin marriage rate, yikes! I was unaware of the commonality of marriages of this type in the Arab world though it does not surprise me.

 

[editec]

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.

Not sure about your numbers, but everything I've read on the subject of DNA analysis suggests that humankind was down to a very small number of human beings TWICE, not once.

The first time it happened, every surviving human being was the offspring of a single female.

The second time it happened (some thousands of years later) the only suriviving humans were the decendents of a single male.

So yes, your argument that our species is probably entirely the offspring of a very limited gene pool seems valid.


But since that time (roughly the last 40,000 years or so) the gene pool has probably expanded as helpful (or at least benign) genetic mutations have been introduced into the pool.

Generally speaking and over the longer run (multiple generations) , I think incestuous mating is a bad idea for the species.

Study of populations who suffered from limited mating propects for many generations seems to prove that contention.

Those populations tend to suffer from more genetically related diseases and conditions that the MUTTS (that represent the rest of humankind) do not.

 

[PaulS1950]

With "in-breeding" genes tend to become intensified. Both good and bad traits can and are passed on. If there are no "bad" genes in the DNA/RNA then you could end up with "super humans" but if the genes that cause diseases and abnormalities were present then you might end up with deformed idiots who don't live long enough to breed. Then the problem is solved.
The strong survive better and live longer having more off-spring and increase the population. With our current medical sciences that is more problematic because we treat the sick and keep them alive longer. Even a persons appearance can be "enhanced" so that desirable traits are no longer passed on to the next generation.
In-breeding, in and of itself, is neither bad nor good as a concept or practice. The available genes are what causes the results for better or worse.

 

[hortysir]

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

By whom?
Where?

 

[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?

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

It is obviously a relative term, ranging from identical twins outward. First cousins are genetically more closely related than second cousins, although the risk of their offspring inheriting the same recessive abnormality may be minimal. Not sure of the significance of your question.

 

[Unkotare]

All this seems to suggest that those who are opposed to interracial marriage are in fact as stupid as they appear.

 

[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

By whom?
Where?

Amynation started it but was closed due to violation