Incest is a family matter after all

well you see because when god made humanity he only made one person then took his own genetic material and turned it into a...woman somehow...then made that man mate with himself and somehow produce offspring that were not just more clones of himself.

in all seriousness tho its because almost every human carries some genetic mutations that can lead to birth defects, but most people carry different genetic mutations. If your mom has tiny bit of genetic material for some mutation, but your dad doesnt, then the mutation is not likely to express itself and youre more likely to end up with a kid who survives childbirth and can pass on the genetic materials to further generations. if both parents have same recessive gene for some mutation and those materials are used to make new baby, then baby can come out with a mutation not present in the parents. every generation of inbreeding increases likelihood that some mutated materials are used and decreases likelihood of the genes eventually being viable to continue to be passed down.

in reality it is just about odds, you could even have several generations of cosanguinous marriages and have no real issues. but in each generation there is an ever-increasing chance that some mutation emerges that prevents the lineage from surviving.

right on, whats a genetic mutation?

Mutation in this sense just means a permanent change in the genetic structure of a given thing.

For example humans mutated in response to the plague, our immune system changed at the structural level to better fight against bacteria. It also made us more susceptible to autoimmune disorders. Its not a linear degradation or improvement. Just things adapting to environment or not replacing themselves.

Genetic mutations mean that one or more bases in the genomic code are replaced, inserted, or deleted. However, this does not necessarily lead to different outcomes in the translation of a protein. Mutations can range from silent (having no effect) to causing small phenotypic changes, or even being lethal.
Often, the second allele inherited from the other parent can compensate for a harmful mutation. Only some mutations follow a clear dominant recessive pattern.
Inbreeding becomes a problem when recessive mutations that cause a phenotype are inherited from both parents. For example, sickle cell disease is relatively common in certain populations because many individuals carry the recessive allele. This is more likely in populations with lower genetic diversity.
From a genetic perspective, inbreeding does not automatically lead to negative outcomes. However, it increases the probability that harmful recessive traits will be expressed, which can affect normal body function. If inbreeding is common within a large population, it can lead to broader health problems over time.

any inbreeding ever result in some kind of positive new result?
anyone ever say. marry your cousin because it will express this cool mutation.

Nature does not classify inbreeding or mutations as “good” or “bad.” If a genetic change leads to a disadvantage, individuals carrying it are less likely to reproduce successfully over time, and the affected alleles may gradually disappear from the population.
In general, higher genetic diversity is beneficial because it increases a population’s ability to adapt and reduces the likelihood that harmful recessive traits will be expressed. However, it is also possible that inbreeding has occasionally had positive effects in history, as advantageous traits can, in principle, become more common through it.
That said, the outcomes are difficult to predict, and in most cases, inbreeding increases the risk of negative effects over time.
A clear example where controlled inbreeding has been used positively is in agriculture and animal breeding. Humans selectively breed plants and domesticated animals to reinforce desirable traits, even though this can also increase the risk of genetic problems.

guess the other left the conversation. he couldnt figure out a way to bullchit his way i assume

i wasnt asking "nature" (why do 'atheist aways bullchiting there way through)

so the answer to my question about inbreeding is no
so if expressing mutations is a bad idea then there is no monkey turning into a man. it only works in the woowoo imagination with copious amounts of deep time.

if someone is born lets say a mutation cause his arm to be disfigured. no one says "golly if he keeps reproducing his children way down the line might have wings"

with fruit flies they tried to induce 'evolution by accelerating the mutation rate. they ended up with fruit flies, dead fruit flies, and defective fruit flies

This post was edited by TiStuff on Mar 23 2026 09:52am

Hmm, I wasn't aware that East Asians also had 2-4% Neanderthal DNA. The thing I am trying to point out isn't that Neanderthal genetics lead one to certain behavior, but rather that it seems some family lines have been engaged in for quite some time with inbreeding and not mixing with outside cultures, which really makes me wonder what they are trying to preserve. There are some individuals with much higher than 4% Neanderthal DNA for instance. Rare, but without a doubt among us. For one who is aware of the physical differences between modern man and these human eating, proto-quasi-humans, it should be easy enough to spot. The uncanny valley effect exists for a reason, inherited from our ancestors and sticks with us still to this day. Food for thought.

You know homo sapiens were also cannibals, right?