Xref: utzoo rec.arts.sf-lovers:57621 sci.bio:4713
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zds-ux!gerry
From: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Incest avoidance
Message-ID: <597@zds-ux.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 91 23:57:50 GMT
References: <9276@plains.NoDak.edu> <1991Mar31.223444.11077@leland.Stanford.EDU> <8987.27f748d9@jetson.uh.edu> <1991Apr2.035304.11461@leland.Stanford.EDU> <21487@crg5.UUCP>
Reply-To: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Organization: Zenith Data Systems
Lines: 16

In article <21487@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Taboos involving cousins, et. al,, are more sophisticated, and 
>the various cultural schools have more relevence for these,
>though it is not clear that biology is totally out of the picture.

I read somewhere of a study of "attraction" (sorry don't remember any
details), that showed a preference for cousins (I'm pretty sure it was
first cousins, but it may have been second cousins).  The evolutionary
force involved here is that cousins are likely to share genes, so the
behavior would benifit a gene pool, not an individual.  If I've got my
facts right, this would fit with the "incest avoidence".  That is,
since there is are definite (potential) problems with siblings, and a
selection pressure for relatives, there is even more reason for evolution
to select for some type of incest avoidence.

Gerry Gleason