Jump to content

Show me the evidence that inbreeding between species is wrong?


inbreeding
 Share

Recommended Posts

Show me the proof that inbreeding is wrong? Or better yet, show me the proof that inbreeding leads to genetic defeats? To me it sounds like a few narcissists scientists got together and decided to play god because they saw a co-relation in the two without taking into account the environmental factors as well as what you eat that leads to genetic defects. If you were in Chernobyl, then it would lead to defects.

To me it sounds like a few people that want to prevent us from having kids at all or having more of them so the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. To me it sounds like someone is playing god so we don't engage in the act of reproduction but they use our kids as battery cells inorder to keep this system running along.  

There is a strong link between being poor and poor health...but to me it sounds like we are paying the price for the carelessness of the previous generation and they want us to suffer and our kids to suffer. In nature, inbreeding happens all the time - the only reason why diseases happen is because of the environment not because of genes. Genes are just switches that get activated when there is changes to the environment.

These people just want to kill the love and are trying to play god and remove impurities and imperfections of the human race and to me it's these narcissists that took over and started to play god because they had the power to.

Edited by inbreeding
fine tunning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

You don't seem to know what inbreeding is.
That does not seem to be your only area of ignorance.

I do know what inbreeding is. It's when you breed with your offsprings but show me the proof that inbreeding leads to genetic defects? To me it sounds like someone wants to play god because they can and interfere with nature. If inbreeding was a problem, then a perfect example of where there is inbreeding is in China and Japan and India, where there are over 2 billion people but to me it sounds like human planning. I don't see those places suffering do you? 

Edited by inbreeding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, inbreeding said:

If inbreeding was a problem,

Even in areas where humans have used it to improve animal stock.

Quote

Exactly the same holds true for cattle, fowl and humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question regarding right and wrong is not a moral one, not a scientific one. As others already mentioned, it is well-documented and supported by our understanding of genetics that inbreeding increases the likelihood of recessive disorders. On the population level we know that severe lack of genetic diversity can affect population fitness to various degrees and so on. 

Whether any of that is right or wrong is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with genetics (or biology or science) per se. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The traditional social strictures have been explained by a number of theories.  Each, and very likely a combination of several, is plausible. I would add that the taboo against incest goes back to a time period when many small groups of people lived in relative isolation, so that looking for mates outside the group required an effort, while marrying one's cousin was convenient - and there was little choice in either case. And we have seen how harmful protracted inbreeding in a limited population can be. 

We have also seen in the royal families of Europe the effects of consanguinity on later generations.

In modern, large and diverse societies, the danger is much diminished, simply because young people are exposed to a far wider choice of potential partners, all of whom are more intriguing than the sister or cousin with whom one fought and vied, or played and colluded through childhood. Incest in these societies is by far more likely to be non-consensual.

Quote

    This is the main reason for the general disapproval. However, consensual incest over 18 (though I question the freedom to choose of one participant in some of those relationships) is not universally against the law, and consanguinous marriages are still accepted in many places.

Edited by Peterkin
missing letters due to haste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, inbreeding said:

Or better yet, show me the proof that inbreeding leads to genetic defeats?

Now that this has been done, does it change your overall arguments? It should, so if it didn't, then perhaps you aren't focused enough.

You start with a genetics question about incest, and by the end of your opening post, you've attacked science and scientists, brought up conspiracies, blamed the current stance on negligence, and made claims about the wealthy preferring non-inbred batteries to inbred ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The traditional social strictures have been explained by a number of theories.  Each, and very likely a combination of several, is plausible. I would add that the taboo against incest goes back to a time period when many small groups of people lived in relative isolation, so that looking for mates outside the group required an effort, while marrying one's cousin was convenient - and there was little choice in either case. And we have seen how harmful protracted inbreeding in a limited population can be. 

We have also seen in the royal families of Europe the effects of consanguinity on later generations.

In modern, large and diverse societies, the danger is much diminished, simply because young people are exposed to a far wider choice of potential partners, all of whom are more intriguing than the sister or cousin with whom one fought and vied, or played and colluded through childhood. Incest in these societies is by far more likely to be non-consensual.

    This is the main reason for the general disapproval. However, consensual incest over 18 (though I question the freedom to choose of one participant in some of those relationships) is not universally against the law, and consanguinous marriages are still accepted in many places.

Again the royal family was affected because of the environment...not because of genetics. To me when you believe something without evidence it basically becomes a religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, inbreeding said:

Again the royal family was affected because of the environment...not because of genetics

You have proof that hydrocephaly and haemophelia are environmental?

 

14 minutes ago, inbreeding said:

To me when you believe something without evidence it basically becomes a religion.

Exactly so. 

I have not seen your citations. Have you read mine? Here's another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, inbreeding said:

Again the royal family was affected because of the environment...not because of genetics. To me when you believe something without evidence it basically becomes a religion.

So on the one hand you are saying that the rich (such as the royal family) are expected to have great health because of the environment. Yet higher rates of genetic diseases are also caused by the same great environment? 

How does that work and what is your evidence that genetic diseases among royals are caused by the environment?

Edit: crossposted with peterkin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, inbreeding said:

If inbreeding was a problem, then a perfect example of where there is inbreeding is in China and Japan and India, where there are over 2 billion people

Why would a large population imply inbreeding?  That makes no logical sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

So on the one hand you are saying that the rich (such as the royal family) are expected to have great health because of the environment. Yet higher rates of genetic diseases are also caused by the same great environment? 

How does that work and what is your evidence that genetic diseases among royals are caused by the environment?

Edit: crossposted with peterkin.

The royal family was given the illusion of being rich - the people that are rich are the communist party and the roman catholics which own the largest number of assets in the world. The royal family is a product. Choose your poison - Communism or Friendly fascism...

Edited by inbreeding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, inbreeding said:

The royal family was given the illusion of being rich - the people that are rich are the communist party and the roman catholics which own the largest number of assets in the world. The royal family is a product. Choose your poison - Communism or Friendly fascism...

!

Moderator Note

Your "rebuttal" to previous posts contained no science. Now we have trolling.

Seeing as your original question was adequately answered, there is no reason to continue this - thread closed.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.