Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen · 10-06-2004, 01:44 AM

Isn't the idea that, before the fall, humans ( i.e. Adam & Eve ) were perfect. They had no disadvantageous genes. After the fall, as humanity began to degenerate, the gene pool slowly deteriorated. So just after the fall, there were not many disadvantageous genes around, and chances of getting a homozygous 'bad' gene would be small, compared to todays degenerated gene pool.

That is why incest used to be ok, but is not now.

Mordy · 10-08-2004, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Clarke

Its worth noting that populations or species of animals that regularly engage in incestuous reproduction tend to not to have the same problems humans do (recessive deleterious genes being expressed) since these lethal or deliterious gene combinations will have been selected out of the population. The negative effects of incest on human populations suggests strongly that incest is an abnormal condition in humans, and not as the OP suggests a "fact of life".

Yes but their populations are rather big, this wouldn't be the case in many circumstances where disaster has struck and theres not many members left, of which must have occured a lot in the pre-historic world. Also you're not citing any studies or evidence other then "Recessives" but recessive genes would be weeded out by NS in an inbred society because recessives woudln't survive. Only the good combinations of inbreds would survive to the point where lines would become distinct and different and then you start having what we have today: Sex between distantly related populations who were at one point related very closley. Otherwise that's an argument against common descent as well.

KeithHarwood · 10-08-2004, 06:06 PM

Don't assume that `recessive' equals `bad'. It refers to the way that the gene is expressed. You have to get a recessive gene from both parents for it to be expressed. The opposite is dominant, it is expressed if you get it from only one parent. Recessives and dominants can be good, indifferent or bad. Bad dominant genes tend to get weeded out rather more quickly than recessive, so you can make a slight case that recessive genes are bad rather more often than dominant, but that's about as far as you can go.

IamMoose · 10-09-2004, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

Isn't the idea that, before the fall, humans ( i.e. Adam & Eve ) were perfect. They had no disadvantageous genes. After the fall, as humanity began to degenerate, the gene pool slowly deteriorated. So just after the fall, there were not many disadvantageous genes around, and chances of getting a homozygous 'bad' gene would be small, compared to todays degenerated gene pool.

That is why incest used to be ok, but is not now.

I've heard this before, or a variation on it. With apologies to anyone who might be offended, it never ceases to amaze me what Christians will come up with to try to 'iron out' obvious problems and contradictions in their faith. Incest 'used to be okay but now isn't'? Oh come on! It's either always been okay for humans or it never has and, if it isn't today, it's pretty obvious to me what THAT means.

IamMoose · 10-09-2004, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Back in a previous life when I was a fundamentalist preacher I used to believe (and teach) that God created Adam and Eve with perfectly formed chromosomes. This accounted for (1) The fact that humans lived incredibly long lifespans and (2) The fact that men could impregnate their sisters, aunts, cousins, neices (even daughers) etc., without exposing genetic weaknesses. This period of relative genetic purity lasted until the time of Noah because the earth was ostensibly protected from the radiation of the sun by an alleged "water canopy". The water canopy was collapsed by God in order to produce the great flood of Noah's day. The sun's radiation then effected human DNA, causing (1) increasingly shorter life expectancy and (2) increased risk of birth defects in cases of incest.

Mighty fine speculation, too bad none of it was consistent with anything proven by geological or fossil records.

-Atheos

Hi there!

I am fascinated that you used to believe this stuff.. I've heard it, or variations on it, from Christians before of course but always wondered how it was that someone could convince themselves of something using such obvious 'pretzel type' logic. Did you, at the time, ever have doubts as to what you were teaching, or did it always make perfect sense to you at the time?

It's interesting to encounter people who have seen things from both sides of the coin. Normally I only get to talk to either lifelong believers or lifelong sceptics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2004, 01:44 AM	#11
Tuvar Ane Ingolenen Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 52.35412N 4.90495E Posts: 1,253	Isn't the idea that, before the fall, humans ( i.e. Adam & Eve ) were perfect. They had no disadvantageous genes. After the fall, as humanity began to degenerate, the gene pool slowly deteriorated. So just after the fall, there were not many disadvantageous genes around, and chances of getting a homozygous 'bad' gene would be small, compared to todays degenerated gene pool. That is why incest used to be ok, but is not now.

10-08-2004, 06:06 PM	#13
KeithHarwood Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Baulkham Hills, New South Wales,Australia Posts: 944	Don't assume that `recessive' equals `bad'. It refers to the way that the gene is expressed. You have to get a recessive gene from both parents for it to be expressed. The opposite is dominant, it is expressed if you get it from only one parent. Recessives and dominants can be good, indifferent or bad. Bad dominant genes tend to get weeded out rather more quickly than recessive, so you can make a slight case that recessive genes are bad rather more often than dominant, but that's about as far as you can go.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.