To think first-degree cousins should not marry?

[Onestonetogo]

Message withdrawn

And with that I leave you to continue debating the chin whilst I get some beauty sleep.

BTW onestonetogo, interbreeding is between two species. You mean inbreeding I think.

Because it's a genetic trait, the ol' chin. The withered leg isn't passed on genetically, and neither will the weakened chin of a slop-eating weed, so long as there's no evolutionary selection against big chins.

Well there are a ton of people that could spare future generations by not breeding - why pick on cousins? Let's stop the lot...

Have only read the op and a little bit more.

Since exploring my family tree, I have discovered that my great grandparents were first cousins. They had 6 children who were all completely ok. They were caucasian and from the East Midlands. I have actually found quite a bit of intermarrying going on, and it turns out even my parents are distantly related. It was when I found a link between dh and me that I got a bit . We're not even from the same county. Dh says it's a wonder our dc's haven't got 3 eyes.

I think we shoudl all stop havig sex immediately because we all decended from common stock....hang on a minute that would be an evolutionary disaster as the human race would dy wout within a hundred years...best go off and have some sex then

Spontaneous mutations that produce recessive non-life threatening but still reproductively enabling genes are not all that frequent - I think 'all the time' is somewhat inappropriate.

Fair enough "all hte time" is a bit inappropriate - but it is late and I have a headache and I am not reviewing my posts properly....it isn't uncommon though in populations which promote consanguinous marriages.

Message withdrawn

But it's certainly not 'common' either - just more frequent than in populations without inter-marriage. I have countless Pakistani relatives married to cousins - including my sister. They are mostly drs and understand the risks - cousin marriages are going out of favour for this reason. Never been any serious problems as far as we know - just a tendancy to eczema.

The risks, unfortunately are not randomly distributed. Some families are unlucky.

But assortative mating can have the same kinds of effects and that is between non-relatives.

Ah well you can't have it both ways, you know. One person's mutated gene is the next generations evolution. The bottle kneck(s) in human populations in our evolutionary history are also thought to be partly responsible for evolution into modern humans.

one stone to go

Shame to waste your last stone, why not crawl back under it. ??

You didn't really come here for debate did you ?

Is this the subject of a thesis ??

There'd be something more solid than just BBC reports if it were surely Bree?

YANBU.

DS2 has a rare genetic disorder (mitochondrial Disease). One of the first questions we are asked is are we "consanguineous". We are not of course, just our "luck" that something happened somewhere to cause it (it is so rare and so hard to determine the genetic basis it is figuratively like finding a needle in a haystack...)

If it reduces the risk of these dreadful conditions, then yes, cousins should not marry.

But mm22bys, with every sympathy for your DS's condition, should everyone with a genetic disorder (e.g. haemophilia) or who carries one of the BRCA genes for breast cancer also not have children?

No, of course not.

Luck of course plays a part. If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said that our family does not have any genetic illnesses / conditions - he is the only one in either of our families with this or any genetic condition.

FWIW, my paternal grandparents were cousins. Read into that what you wish....

Wonders what one stone said.

she responded to your post telling her to crawl back under her stone, by saying she felt it was bullying.

I think it's odd that your post stayed, but her response to it got deleted - she didn't swear at you or anything, just gave her opinion of your post.

Either both should have gone, or neither, imo. I hate it when MNHQ does stuff like this!

Message withdrawn

Desiderata on Thu 05-Mar-09 22:51:17
"I think that chins will die out in the Western world, Hab.

I don't mean chins will simply disappear, leaving a loose blob of flesh

Just that they will get smaller and weaker as they are used less and less to masticate tough foods.

If you break your leg, it withers under the plaster. Why is a chin any different?"

Do you subscribe to Lamarck's theory of evolution then, Desiderata? That if an unused limb withers in an individual, this will be carried on to the next generation?

Surely evolution does not work the same way as the withering of an unused limb in individuals? We all still have appendices despite not having used them for a very very long time.

If weak chins were to evolve, there would have to be an evolutionary advantage in having weak chins; something that means individuals with a weak chin had a greater chance of reproducing. Or (as in the case of the Habsburgs) a weak chin would have to be linked to some other reproductory advantage.

Message withdrawn

The problem with chins is that, apparently, as humans are genrally becoming more gracile and les robust overall the bone structure of the chin is receding more quickly then the teeth. The result is not entirely attractive.

It's not Lamarckian - but there is a tendency for structures to degrade when they aare not under selection to remain useful.

But an unused limb becomes a cost - a burden - on the resources that may decrease overall reproductive fitness and therefore there may be selection for individuals who do not carry that burden.

Message withdrawn