I like my sister??!?!?!

[Fishteacher73]

I was reading yesterday about the mathematical necessity of inbreeding (specifically in humans). After only about 30 generations there would need to have been aprox. 30 billion unrelated individualts to reproduce to produce a single "non-inbred" individual. Genetically speaking, what advantages could this produce (There must be some to counter balance the obvious problems of if inbreeding)?

[Fishteacher73]

Could one argue that this "source" of mutation was a bit more regular and allowed quicker adaptation than just random transcription errors and ratiatiion?

[Biochemist]

Could one argue that this "source" of mutation was a bit more regular and allowed quicker adaptation than just random transcription errors and ratiatiion?

Interesting. It sure seems (if this is true) we could investigate for the incidence of favorable mutation in Tenessee and Arkansas.

..but if a couple, married in Tenesee, gets divorced in Arkansas, are they still brother and sister?

[infamous]

Interesting. It sure seems (if this is true) we could investigate for the incidence of favorable mutation in Tenessee and Arkansas.

 

Carefull what you say there, hill folks may not appreciate the inference.

[C1ay]

Interesting. It sure seems (if this is true) we could investigate for the incidence of favorable mutation in Tenessee and Arkansas.

 

Watch it. I'm from Arkansas :o

[infamous]

Watch it. I'm from Arkansas :o

 

Yeah, and I'm form southern Missouri and proud of it.

[C1ay]

There must be some to counter balance the obvious problems of if inbreeding?

 

Maybe I could counterbalance for you. Since I don't have a sister of my own, maybe I could use yours. What's she look like? :o

[Biochemist]

Watch it. I'm from Arkansas :o

Maybe you're one of the significant steps forward that FsT was looking for. You are a pretty smart guy. :o

 

My apologies to all Arkansans and Tenneseeans.

[TeleMad]

I was reading yesterday about the mathematical necessity of inbreeding (specifically in humans). After only about 30 generations there would need to have been aprox. 30 billion unrelated individualts to reproduce to produce a single "non-inbred" individual. Genetically speaking, what advantages could this produce (There must be some to counter balance the obvious problems of if inbreeding)?

 

Hell, it took long enough! I've been trying for days to login...haven't been able to since the forum move. Anyway...

 

I've heard that (much to Southerner's delight) a person can mate with someone as close as a first cousin with no increase in probability of having problems with the offspring than if they mated with a completely unrelated stranger.

 

As far as inbreeding, it doesn't cause negative mutations in any way. What it does is increase the probability that offspring will obtain 2 copies of a deleterious allele.

[Biochemist]

As far as inbreeding, it doesn't cause negative mutations in any way. What it does is increase the probability that offspring will obtain 2 copies of a deleterious allele.

Educate me on this, TM. How can it increase the probability of 2 copies of a bad allele and not raise the possibilities of negative mutations?

[Fishteacher73]

I think the difference is that TM was referring to specific altering of DNA as mutations, not the increase of negative recessive traits as mutation (The correct technical def. of mutation).

 

These acts would not alter the specific DNa of the offspring no more so than two un-related individuals would, but it would alter the phenotypic frequency of recessive traits.

[Biochemist]

I think the difference is that TM was referring to specific altering of DNA as mutations, not the increase of negative recessive traits as mutation (The correct technical def. of mutation).

Ah- Thanks very much. I didn't know that "mutation" was limitied (technically) to alterations in DNA base sequences. I thought we use "mutation" typically to discuss visible changes in phenotype. Is that an incorrect usage?

[Fishteacher73]

It really depends on the realm that it is being used. Biologicly speaking an individual can NOT adapt, only a species can. So there are areas in which common usage is a bit different than the technical usage.

[TeleMad]

I've heard that (much to Southerner's delight) a person can mate with someone as close as a first cousin with no increase in probability of having problems with the offspring than if they mated with a completely unrelated stranger.

 

Rather odd coincidence, but I was watching CNN headline news on April 5th and they said that it is legal to marry one's first cousin in 26 states.

[Fishteacher73]

Rather odd coincidence, but I was watching CNN headline news on April 5th and they said that it is legal to marry one's first cousin in 26 states.

 

 

Were they all the red ones..... ;)

[Queso]

Were they all the red ones..... ;)

now that's a good joke. ;)

[Biochemist]

Were they all the red ones..... ;)

Careful.... You are in Texas. Might want to research your family bush. Oops. Tree.