A few days ago I have just thought about somthing wierd. If two people have a kid, their DNA is mixed into the new child. That child can not have a baby with people related to him because the baby would have problems. So they have a baby with another person made from the DNA of two others who were made from the DNA of another to people, and so on and so on. People would start mixing thousands of diffrent peoples DNA, reasulting in everyone becoming related in a way. Is this possable? If it is, will it be a threat? What do you think?

NOTE: OK OK I GET IT STOP BEING JERKS ABOUT IT

I believe that inbreeding only really becomes a problem in isolated communities.

zombiejoe:
A few days ago I have just thought about somthing wierd. If two people have a kid, their DNA is mixed into the new child. That child can not have a baby with people related to him because the baby would have problems. So they have a baby with another person made from the DNA of two others who were made from the DNA of another to people, and so on and so on. People would start mixing thousands of diffrent peoples DNA, reasulting in everyone becoming related in a way. Is this possable? If it is, will it be a threat? What do you think?

It's not proven the child would have problems, but down the line sometimes a kid will be more prone to them, although we are talking several generations. Honestly it's just human genetics, and it's only our sense of illusionary morals that says it's bad. Animals and other mammals do it all the time, we just seem to hold ourselves higher and all that bull.

zombiejoe:
A few days ago I have just thought about somthing wierd. If two people have a kid, their DNA is mixed into the new child. That child can not have a baby with people related to him because the baby would have problems. So they have a baby with another person made from the DNA of two others who were made from the DNA of another to people, and so on and so on. People would start mixing thousands of diffrent peoples DNA, reasulting in everyone becoming related in a way. Is this possable? If it is, will it be a threat? What do you think?

You forget about genetic mutations, and the fact that for inbreeding to be a problem, the games have to be really similar. I mean like first-cousin (or closer) similar.

I don't think that's a new theory. If it is, I wish I beat you to posting it because I've been thinking that for awhile.

zombiejoe:
People would start mixing thousands of diffrent peoples DNA, reasulting in everyone becoming related in a way. Is this possable? If it is, will it be a threat? What do you think?

Tucker... what the fuck are you babbling about?

No really this makes no sense, the more people there are the less similar types of DNA hence less of a chance to reproduce with seomeone of the same DNA. All in all it really doesn't matter since every single one of us is around 99.96-99.98 genetically indentical.

And the whole reason having children with someone you are related to is dangerous is because all genetic defects are located on the same exact chromosome in all people, and since defects are usually heretic, then the chances of that genetic default being passed on is more likely. That is because all defects are recessive, and the only way they will be passed on it if both your parents have it and pass it on to you. Get it?

actually unless inbreding is continued over the course of several generations the effects are rather negligible.
in fact if you marry as distant as a first cousin the children will suffer no ill-effects provided that there isn't a history of inbreeding or genetic disorders.

but why would you want to marry anyone that close? i mean they're family it's not even like dealing with other people. you have all kinds of wierdness you'll have to deal with even if it was just dating them. not to mention depriving your progeny of the extra set of great grand parents.

genetically it's aceptable, socially less so.

Let me throw in.

It is not only not harmful, but beneficial, for first cousins to moderately breed. That is to be understood as every three or four generations or so. Ask anybody involved in animal breeding. The problem comes with siblings breeding or the breeding of cousins consistently over generations.

Mutations? I have yet to see one case of random, genetic mutation be anything but harmful. Care to challenge this? Please point to one beneficial, non-inherited, genetic mutation. We currently have a name for the harmful, non-inherited, genetic mutation: cancer. Not enough is made of this lack of evidence in mutation and how it impacts the current ideas of on evolution. If you are a part of the Evolutionist Church, I apologize. I realize that pointing to a serious lack of scientific evidence is an insult to your faith.

To the point of the thread, even cousins can procreate. The occasional cousin-on-cousin action is generally genetically fine (sometimes cool). Just better not let it happen generation after generation. Also, check the laws or your state.

I was about to say somebody please give this kid a biology class but it looks like the lesson has already started in here.

Considering I'm partially studying biology I should probably chip in some scientific knowledge, but it's nearly 3am and I'm lazy...

Although scientists theorize that we're all related to each other by at least twelfth cousins, I doubt there would be inbreding problems just yet.

Yes, hypothetically, it is possible for any potential match-ups to be inbreeding. But by that time, we may not even be Homo Sapiens.

nah it wouldn't But your missing the big picture. Pie is delicious lol. Sorry for the randomness. The same genes only spread so far before they you no longer hold the same genes as other people. Like me my uncle traced back to 1610 and found out were Eskimo Native Irish English. Weird combination i know.

We are all related we all started as one family in Africa that branched out into different types of DNA we're no longer directly related to people outside of our families but we were at one point

Kukul:

Anacortian:
Let me throw in.

It is not only not harmful, but beneficial, for first cousins to moderately breed. That is to be understood as every three or four generations or so. Ask anybody involved in animal breeding. The problem comes with siblings breeding or the breeding of cousins consistently over generations.

Mutations? I have yet to see one case of random, genetic mutation be anything but harmful. Care to challenge this? Please point to one beneficial, non-inherited, genetic mutation. We currently have a name for the harmful, non-inherited, genetic mutation: cancer. Not enough is made of this lack of evidence in mutation and how it impacts the current ideas of on evolution. If you are a part of the Evolutionist Church, I apologize. I realize that a serious lack of scientific evidence is an insult to your faith.

I love it how Creatonists are "doing their homework" just enough to try to disprove something about evolution and yet still have no idea what are they talking about.
Genetic mutations are a change in the order of bases which are responible for the order of aminoacids creating a protein and therefore are changing the protein's structure and function.
They are not beneficial or harmful by nature, only enviornment can test that. In some condition even a "harmful" mutation may prove to be beneficial.
And the reason why we haven't observed a beneficial mutation is because we didn't even start keeping track of the evolution and it has been going on for billions of years.

pffff

You have displayed your prejudice. I am a skeptic. I believe in neither mechanic as proven, scientific fact. I insist either side proves their hypothesis scientifically. Neither has. If we define "creationist" as a person believing that there is a creator, I am. If we define it as one who believes in a six day creation, I am not. It is important to point out that I am not for the same reason as I do not believe in the Darwinian mechanic for the origin of species: I am a skeptic, and they lack proof.

You, sir, have yet to point to even one instance to the criterion above. Furthermore, I you would like to prove that this mechanic is the origin of species, you must show where MANY of these mutations to which you cannot point has in fact caused a divergence of species... I await your revelation.

Dogs make a pretty good example of that last point. We have been deliberately breeding dogs into more and more diverse forms for 6,000 to 10,000 years. Why is it that, no matter how diverse we make the species, a new species has yet to emerge. All dogs are still biologically compatible with all other dogs.

Back to my skepticism on your faith. Your reply stated your dogma; it did not give one scientific proof. You accept Evolutionism on faith as a faith. I am merely honest enough to state that I do not know. Are you?

Kukul:

Anacortian:
Let me throw in.

It is not only not harmful, but beneficial, for first cousins to moderately breed. That is to be understood as every three or four generations or so. Ask anybody involved in animal breeding. The problem comes with siblings breeding or the breeding of cousins consistently over generations.

Mutations? I have yet to see one case of random, genetic mutation be anything but harmful. Care to challenge this? Please point to one beneficial, non-inherited, genetic mutation. We currently have a name for the harmful, non-inherited, genetic mutation: cancer. Not enough is made of this lack of evidence in mutation and how it impacts the current ideas of on evolution. If you are a part of the Evolutionist Church, I apologize. I realize that a serious lack of scientific evidence is an insult to your faith.

I love it how Creatonists are "doing their homework" just enough to try to disprove something about evolution and yet still have no idea what are they talking about.
Genetic mutations are a change in the order of bases which are responible for the order of aminoacids creating a protein and therefore are changing the protein's structure and function.
They are not beneficial or harmful by nature, only enviornment can test that. In some condition even a "harmful" mutation may prove to be beneficial.
And the reason why we haven't observed a beneficial mutation is because we didn't even start keeping track of the evolution and it has been going on for billions of years.

pffff

actually he is mostly correct, first cousins can have kids and suffer no real ill effects for the most part

it's not the best idea in the world, however it's not as bad as brother and sister having a kid

it is a bit odd to think that we are all related, if you go back far enough, everything is related

The child would not necessarily have problems, but if inbreeding continues for extended periods of time within a population, it loses heterozygousity, which leads to a loss of genetic variation, which creates all sorts of trouble- increased disease, lack of adaptation, huge quantities of a single genetic defect. Inbreeding is generally a bad thing, but is not automatically debilitating to an individual who is born as a result of it.

Speaking of your theory that all of us are related, it really depends on which way you look at it. If one believes in Adam and Eve in a strictly literal sense, then yes, we are all related, as Adam begat Cain, who (with an unrelated woman basically provided by God) begat the rest of the human race. If one looks at it within the development of humanity by evolution, however, chances are that we are not all related, but that several specific genotypes just became more common in our ancestor species by natural selection. If one looks even further, though, he or she could argue that we are all related because we all came from the same frickin' ooze. By this time it doesn't really matter, as the human population on Earth is so huge that any shreds of relation except for close family are so minimal that they don't affect anything at all. Unless you have an incest fetish, there's no need to be worried about the planet just being a big, sex-filled family XD

NOTE: I am aware that I could have mentioned other creation myths, but I don't really have a working knowledge of them.

While interesting I don't think it will become a threat.

quiet_samurai:

Tucker... what the fuck are you babbling about?

... Was that an RvB quote you just wrote?

You should listen to the song I'm my own grandpa....it might interest someone with your....calibur of thoughts...

EDIT: Ok the embed didn't work....here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw
EDIT 2: actually this video presents the song better ^

A test some years ago confirmed that about 99.9% of all humans breed from one single woman x_x

It's best not to think about it.

Anacortian:

Dogs make a pretty good example of that last point. We have been deliberately breeding dogs into more and more diverse forms for 6,000 to 10,000 years. Why is it that, no matter how diverse we make the species, a new species has yet to emerge. All dogs are still biologically compatible with all other dogs.

We've only been domesticating dogs for around 15 thousand years, a blip in evolutionary terms. In a similar argument, different countries have been breeding mostly self contained for thousands of years, yet aside from some minor physiological differences we're exactly the same and are one species. Yes, Dogs come in a massive variety of shapes, but that's just a quirk of their biology: a few genes swapped here and there has MASSIVE physiological effects. Compare them to cats or horses, the same level of intensive selection has significantly less effect on outward appearance.

On the "Everyone's Related" issue: Related in social terms is an approximation, normally just applying to those immediately related to you. Yes, if you go back far enough everyone will share a great great great^34 grandparents. You can see for yourself the impossibility of marriage between unrelated people (ignoring all the dodgy biological questions of where the heck they came from) just by counting ancestors. 2 parents. 4 grandparents. 8 greatgrandparents. 16 yadda yadda yaddda. Go back 33 generations and you have more ancestors than the current population of the Earth.

Kukul:

Anacortian:

Kukul:

Anacortian:
Let me throw in.

It is not only not harmful, but beneficial, for first cousins to moderately breed. That is to be understood as every three or four generations or so. Ask anybody involved in animal breeding. The problem comes with siblings breeding or the breeding of cousins consistently over generations.

Mutations? I have yet to see one case of random, genetic mutation be anything but harmful. Care to challenge this? Please point to one beneficial, non-inherited, genetic mutation. We currently have a name for the harmful, non-inherited, genetic mutation: cancer. Not enough is made of this lack of evidence in mutation and how it impacts the current ideas of on evolution. If you are a part of the Evolutionist Church, I apologize. I realize that a serious lack of scientific evidence is an insult to your faith.

I love it how Creatonists are "doing their homework" just enough to try to disprove something about evolution and yet still have no idea what are they talking about.
Genetic mutations are a change in the order of bases which are responible for the order of aminoacids creating a protein and therefore are changing the protein's structure and function.
They are not beneficial or harmful by nature, only enviornment can test that. In some condition even a "harmful" mutation may prove to be beneficial.
And the reason why we haven't observed a beneficial mutation is because we didn't even start keeping track of the evolution and it has been going on for billions of years.

pffff

You have displayed your prejudice. I am a skeptic. I believe in neither mechanic as proven, scientific fact. I insist either side proves their hypothesis scientifically. Neither has. If we define "creationist" as a person believing that there is a creator, I am. If we define it as one who believes in a six day creation, I am not. It is important to point out that I am not for the same reason as I do not believe in the Darwinian mechanic for the origin of species: I am a skeptic, and they lack proof.

You, sir, have yet to point to even one instance to the criterion above. Furthermore, I you would like to prove that this mechanic is the origin of species, you must show where MANY of these mutations to which you cannot point has in fact caused a divergence of species... I await your revelation.

Dogs make a pretty good example of that last point. We have been deliberately breeding dogs into more and more diverse forms for 6,000 to 10,000 years. Why is it that, no matter how diverse we make the species, a new species has yet to emerge. All dogs are still biologically compatible with all other dogs.

Back to my skepticism on your faith. Your reply stated your dogma; it did not give one scientific proof. You accept Evolutionism on faith as a faith. I am merely honest enough to state that I do not know. Are you?

God damn it, are you trolling me?

You know just as well as I do that there are tons of evidence supporting Darwinism in every Biology handbook, I don't have time to copy paste them here. Theory of Evolution may pose few not yet answered questions, but it's the only sane, logical and scientific way of explaining the origin of species.
If you really think you were created by God ask him why did he gave you an appendix if you ever get it inflamed.

I'm sorry you were suspended. Please, know that I have yet to report anybody. Though I believe it is you who are trolling me. Note that I have yet to insult anybody.

I would argue that nobody has posited a real, scientific theory as to the origin and development of life. If you have faith in your hypothesis, I merely ask that you back it up with science or admit that you stand only on faith.

The existence of the appendix can prove either case with equal force. On one hand, it shows an apparent mutation. This point, however, can be countered my noting that said "mutation" cannot be accounted as a non-inherited changing of the genome and that we do not know one way or the other if the appendix is or is not beneficial. All we know is that it occasionally malfunctions with mortal consequences. On the other hand, the appendix more likely than not does something. This would lead one to intelligent design. This point, too, can be refuted by noting its tenancy to occasionally kill the organism. In short, the appendix is a good argument for either; so a good argument for neither.

StevieWonderMk2:

We've only been domesticating dogs for around 15 thousand years, a blip in evolutionary terms. In a similar argument, different countries have been breeding mostly self contained for thousands of years, yet aside from some minor physiological differences we're exactly the same and are one species. Yes, Dogs come in a massive variety of shapes, but that's just a quirk of their biology: a few genes swapped here and there has MASSIVE physiological effects. Compare them to cats or horses, the same level of intensive selection has significantly less effect on outward appearance.

A 15,0000 year time frame further supports my point. Fifteen millennia of intense artificial tampering and no new species. We do not know that dogs have a common ancestry with anything but wolves; comparing dogs with cats or horses is as pertinent to the debate as comparing them to rocks or water. One might say that we have not had enough time. I must point out that fifteen millenia of artificial tampering is worth eons of natural breeding and that one cannot scientifically posit a theory on evidence one only hopes exists. When dogs have been bred to be other than dogs, the Darwinian mechanic will take a great step forward to an actual theory. Until then, it is merely an hypothesis.

------------------------------------------------

Again, I am only a skeptic. Please, do not look to me for a scientific answer. I bring nothing but questions to the table. In full disclosure, I am a Catholic, and I believe the Creator created through a mechanic we have yet to grasp. Furthermore, I am not much bothered by human ignorance as to that mechanic, but I am bothered my intellectual dishonesty wherever it my arise.

Woah i thought it was pretty set in stone that everyone knew that humans were all distantly related especially those outside of africa who decend from a handful of people who adventured out of africa. Like someone has said before, inbreeding is a problem when you get inbreeding ie siblings, even first cousins (give an example in a mo) and parents child because the DNA is very simular which can cause all other problems and if this goes on with more offspring with carrying a mutant gene thats where the problems begin. The Hapsburg family are a perfect example of how interbreeding goes wrong with Carlos III i think. The Hapsburgs (think i spelt the name right) like to keep power in the family so first cousins married each other and had children, Ferdinand and Isabella started it all, ommm. But yes we're all related ever so slightly but has the genetic gene pool has widened with mutations, population etc we're allowed to have babies with other people who are not closely related because their genetic code is significantly different enough not to cause any damage. :) have a nice day

I don't think so.

Anacortian:

I would argue that nobody has posited a real, scientific theory as to the origin and development of life. If you have faith in your hypothesis, I merely ask that you back it up with science or admit that you stand only on faith.

The existence of the appendix can prove either case with equal force. On one hand, it shows an apparent mutation. This point, however, can be countered my noting that said "mutation" cannot be accounted as a non-inherited changing of the genome and that we do not know one way or the other if the appendix is or is not beneficial. All we know is that it occasionally malfunctions with mortal consequences. On the other hand, the appendix more likely than not does something. This would lead one to intelligent design. This point, too, can be refuted by noting its tenancy to occasionally kill the organism. In short, the appendix is a good argument for either; so a good argument for neither.

i don't see any basis for your claim that "the appendix more likely than not does something." there's no scientific evidence that the appendix serves any purpose, and even if it did, it would do nothing to support intelligent design over any other theory of the origin of life.

anyway, there's plenty of other vestigial organs in the human body. we can argue whether the mechanism of change is genetic mutation guided by natural selection or the hand of god, but the evidence that humans developed from earlier lifeforms seems fairly clear-cut.

StevieWonderMk2:

We've only been domesticating dogs for around 15 thousand years, a blip in evolutionary terms. In a similar argument, different countries have been breeding mostly self contained for thousands of years, yet aside from some minor physiological differences we're exactly the same and are one species. Yes, Dogs come in a massive variety of shapes, but that's just a quirk of their biology: a few genes swapped here and there has MASSIVE physiological effects. Compare them to cats or horses, the same level of intensive selection has significantly less effect on outward appearance.

A 15,0000 year time frame further supports my point. Fifteen millennia of intense artificial tampering and no new species. We do not know that dogs have a common ancestry with anything but wolves; comparing dogs with cats or horses is as pertinent to the debate as comparing them to rocks or water. One might say that we have not had enough time. I must point out that fifteen millenia of artificial tampering is worth eons of natural breeding and that one cannot scientifically posit a theory on evidence one only hopes exists. When dogs have been bred to be other than dogs, the Darwinian mechanic will take a great step forward to an actual theory. Until then, it is merely an hypothesis.
[/quote]

you give artificial breeding too much credit. first of all, humans have tampered with HUMAN breeding for at least that long. Second, dog breeders aren't breeding for reproductive isolation. Third, lions and tigers were geographically isolated for at least 2 million years and can still interbreed.

Oh, and dogs also share a common ancestry with foxes.

cobra_ky:

you give artificial breeding too much credit. first of all, humans have tampered with HUMAN breeding for at least that long. Second, dog breeders aren't breeding for reproductive isolation. Third, lions and tigers were geographically isolated for at least 2 million years and can still interbreed.

Oh, and dogs also share a common ancestry with foxes.

I do not think I am giving it too much credit. In domesticating animals, man has become everything natural selection is but on roids.

I like your point man tampering with his own genetics. I agree that man has been affecting how he breeds for some time. This, however, is not artificial in the full sense of the word. Until the advent of at least primitive eugenics, man was more or less following his animal nature and breeding with whomever struck his fancy (be that fancy an appetite for beauty, intelligence, wealth, power, or cetera.) Civilization has done much to tame him, but we have yet to domesticate man.

I would say that many in the field of animal husbandry are breeding for isolation and have been longer than we have been literate. Granted this isolation is not one of proximity, but it is genetic all the same.

If lions and tigers can breed then they are within the same species. I honestly did not know they could and will be researching that claim (a lion/tiger hybrid would look awesome!)... Yep, they look sweet... Though this brings with it the argument of the mule. I honestly have no answer for the mule. A horse and an donkey appear to be of different species but can breed freaks. This would lead one to assume that they have a common ancestry. But there is that word "assume." To assume is quite distinct from proving. Hence, if lions and tigers are said to have diverged two million years ago, then we prove nothing. We did not see it happen, and science is about seeing and measuring as directly opposed to stacking assumptions.

I will grant the Darwinian mechanic when we actually see a new species arise, but not when we think it may have arisen long ago based on a fossil record that grossly incomplete and open to interpretation. To that end I would like to pose an experiment. Take forty dogs and throw them on an island. Keep some observers there and have them (the dogs) just fuck like crazy. When we get a new species, Darwin will gain some credibility. Until then, he is not an pioneer of Science but a founder of a faith. I recommend one uses rats for faster breeding, but it would be difficult to be certain they were not adulterating the experiment.

Foxes? Yes. Let me reword. Dogs (domesticated canine) share a common ancestry with feral/wild canine (wolves, foxes, coyotes, et cetera).

Anacortian:
I will grant the Darwinian mechanic when we actually see a new species arise, but not when we think it may have arisen long ago based on a fossil record that grossly incomplete and open to interpretation. To that end I would like to pose an experiment. Take forty dogs and throw them on an island. Keep some observers there and have them (the dogs) just fuck like crazy. When we get a new species, Darwin will gain some credibility. Until then, he is not an pioneer of Science but a founder of a faith. I recommend one uses rats for faster breeding, but it would be difficult to be certain they were not adulterating the experiment.

Speciation is a slow and gradual process, and probably very difficult to observe in its entirety in a human lifetime, especially since there's no guarantee that your dog population would become reproductively isolated. (and they would be unlikely to if confined to a single habitat on an island.)

But maybe some examples of speciation already occurring in nature would change your mind?

Housebroken Lunatic:

quiet_samurai:

Tucker... what the fuck are you babbling about?

... Was that an RvB quote you just wrote?

Aye, it was.

cobra_ky:

Anacortian:
I will grant the Darwinian mechanic when we actually see a new species arise, but not when we think it may have arisen long ago based on a fossil record that grossly incomplete and open to interpretation. To that end I would like to pose an experiment. Take forty dogs and throw them on an island. Keep some observers there and have them (the dogs) just fuck like crazy. When we get a new species, Darwin will gain some credibility. Until then, he is not an pioneer of Science but a founder of a faith. I recommend one uses rats for faster breeding, but it would be difficult to be certain they were not adulterating the experiment.

Speciation is a slow and gradual process, and probably very difficult to observe in its entirety in a human lifetime, especially since there's no guarantee that your dog population would become reproductively isolated. (and they would be unlikely to if confined to a single habitat on an island.)

But maybe some examples of speciation already occurring in nature would change your mind?

Wow! I this is the first time I have been presented with this good evidence. Ring species could give the Darwinian mechanic this credibility. I would only stress that this is observation and not experimentation, but it is very compelling observation. This would raise Darwinism to a theory but restrict it from becoming a law. I will read more into ring species and may return with an informed view.

The dog experiment (or one like it) is the only way of which I can think to prove it as a law. Obviously the isolated dog population would become a distinct species in its entirety from the common canine. This would take a time spanning several human generations, but such conclusive evidence would be well worth the effort. Habitat could be artificially controlled and breeding planned to speed-up things.

I thank you. You are the first to present intellectually honest evidence on this subject. This would naturally lead us to the next question: If proven to explain how life operates now, how did life originate from the inanimate? The current origin of species from other species must be something quite different than the origin of the first species.

----------------------------

Not that I consider myself of very much account, but I have at least once been accused of trolling. To that I would like to point out, first, that I have insulted nobody. Secondly, I really do believe that anybody who took the time to reply to me is owed the time it takes me to seriously reply to them. I am not extending an argument; I am taking seriously those with differing opinions about the world at hand.