Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!ut-sally!seismo!gatech!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.med,net.bio Subject: Re: why not incest? Message-ID: <1069@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 19-Jul-86 16:39:51 EDT Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1069 Posted: Sat Jul 19 16:39:51 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jul-86 04:11:27 EDT References: <2588@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <892@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 60 Xref: watmath net.singles:14528 net.med:4241 net.bio:616 In article <892@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU>, sadoyama@pavepaws.berkeley.edu (Eric J Sadoyama) writes: >In article <2588@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> stever@mit-eddie.UUCP (Stephen Robbins) writes: >> There are certain genetic considerations between MOTOS >>incest, but other than that, I don't consider it my place to dictate >>what people can and can't do. >I've heard this reasoning many times, but never any proof or evidence >for it. How is this any different, genetically, from the situation in >herds, or other animal living groups, where the dominant male mates with >*all* the females in the group, be they related or not? It isn't different, really. But mating between two closely "related" organisms (that reproduce sexually, obviously) could impart to the offspring a disproportionate number of characteristics reflected in recessive genes (genes which do not express themselves in the organism's physical charac- teristics when they are paired with other, more "powerful" ["dominant"] genes, but which will express themselves thus when paired with an identical gene). These characteristics include a number of congenital diseases and deformities. Natural selection has already pretty much suppressed harmful genes which are not recessive, but has been less good at getting rid of recessive, harmful genes which can be passed on for generations with impunity to the carriers. So an "incestuous" mating is more likely to cause two identical recessive genes to pair up in the offspring (one of these genes being much more likely to be present in both a brother and sister, having been passed from one parent to both children, or to be present in both a parent and child, having been passed from the parent to that child) and the offspring ends up as the loser. This certainly must hold good in the wild as well as in civilization. The implications on human law are a Pandora's box. Ancient biblical injunc- tion (which, if it was not actually furnished by the deity, presumably knew nothing about genetics per se but may have arisen partly out of astute observation about inheritance of undesired characteristics, as in breeding animals, or from the desire to keep family relationships "simple" and "pure") simply banned sex outright between persons who are lineally related. The modern view (outside of biblical or other religious considerations to the contrary) might be that incestuous SEX would be harmless (outside of psychological considerations) but that an incestuous conception would bring into the world another person whose chances of inherited disease or deformity would be much greater than the result of a conception between two randomly unrelated persons. So what are we gonna do, say that incestuous sex is OK, but any fetus conceived in an incestuous relationship must be aborted? Or allow it to be born but almost certainly suffer from something debilitating sooner than most other persons do? Or require that participants in such sex use contraceptives under pain of punishment? (This I know is a whole 'nother debate... Big Brother and all....) I apologize for the wordiness of this response, but I hope that I am more on track here than off (it's been a decade since I took high school biology). >Eric J Sadoyama 2033 Haste St #107 Berkeley CA 94704 USA (415)548-1711 >or (on break): 942 Hoomoana St Pearl City HI 96782 USA (808)455-4276 >sadoyama@pavepaws.berkeley.edu or {backbone}!ucbvax!pavepaws!sadoyama -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, go for it! allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy