Kay did you fail Biology or something? It is very dangerous to inbreed (because of the lack of genetic diversity which sets up offspring to fall into mutations), such is the case with pure bred dogs because their family lines are so close to one another.
Have to say its disturbing to read, but not surprising.
I think you failed biology. Let’s assume that one of them had a genetic disorder in their family. Now let’s assume that one of them carried the recessive gene for that disorder. Now let’s assume that both of them did. Even then, there’s only a 1/4 chance of one of their kids having that disorder, which might not be present at all.
You mention mutations…. inbreeding does not cause mutations. While all their traits would be homozygous, mutations aren’t occurring because of that.
Hellomoot explains it best. Inbreeding increases the likelihood of genetic conditions that are already present in the genotype making an appearance in the phenotype. MsAnnThrope’s schoolmates’ families obviously already had the sticky-out chin gene to begin with. So maybe there’s an argument in favour of inbreeding where the people involved are tall, attractive, healthy, intellectually gifted (and whatever other genetic traits are considered positive these days – maybe justbeingmiley’s “big-dicked cousins” for example) people; I get the feeling that this argument doesn’t apply to Michael and Shannon however.
07deadlysins;
No, Kay’s right. A single instance of procreation between cousins is unlikely to have any adverse effect. It takes successive generations of inbreeding.
These people should not breed. I say that not because they’re cousins, but because they’re both dumber than a box of rocks. The world does not need their progeny.
Kay did you fail Biology or something? It is very dangerous to inbreed (because of the lack of genetic diversity which sets up offspring to fall into mutations), such is the case with pure bred dogs because their family lines are so close to one another.
Have to say its disturbing to read, but not surprising.
@07deadlysins
I think you failed biology. Let’s assume that one of them had a genetic disorder in their family. Now let’s assume that one of them carried the recessive gene for that disorder. Now let’s assume that both of them did. Even then, there’s only a 1/4 chance of one of their kids having that disorder, which might not be present at all.
You mention mutations…. inbreeding does not cause mutations. While all their traits would be homozygous, mutations aren’t occurring because of that.
^Look hellomoot, I knew these two kids at school whose ‘rents were 1st cousins. The whole family had these big sticky-out chins and were ugly as fuck.
They looked like mutations to me. And I should know because I was there.
44: What are you talking about, specifically?
Hellomoot explains it best. Inbreeding increases the likelihood of genetic conditions that are already present in the genotype making an appearance in the phenotype. MsAnnThrope’s schoolmates’ families obviously already had the sticky-out chin gene to begin with. So maybe there’s an argument in favour of inbreeding where the people involved are tall, attractive, healthy, intellectually gifted (and whatever other genetic traits are considered positive these days – maybe justbeingmiley’s “big-dicked cousins” for example) people; I get the feeling that this argument doesn’t apply to Michael and Shannon however.
07deadlysins;
No, Kay’s right. A single instance of procreation between cousins is unlikely to have any adverse effect. It takes successive generations of inbreeding.
I can definitely picture Shannon and Michael appearing on a US version of Jeremy Kyle’s show.
These people should not breed. I say that not because they’re cousins, but because they’re both dumber than a box of rocks. The world does not need their progeny.
then who will fight in our wars?…oh.