Incest

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Supposedly you had to marry (and probably have kids with) a princess in order to take the throne. Generations of power consolidation made it so that it was inevitably your sister or half sister.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sexuality.htm

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/womneg.htm

srug I don't know if either is backed up by more recent work.

Considering that is the case as fact, that still doesn't equate to Egytian's having a mighty empire because of incest. While the cousin marrying of the Euros for purposes of alliances does.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering that is the case as fact, that still doesn't equate to Egytian's having a mighty empire because of incest. While the cousin marrying of the Euros for purposes of alliances does.

I know, I was just being a dick. Wouldn't it be cool if that were true though?

But both of those offer contradiction to the actual implementation of their practices. As the first points out, Ra created subsequent gods by masturbating them into existence. But the pharaohs did not assume such capabilites, so to claim that the average Egyptian claimed that capability because the gods had it is unclear. Also, I do not agree with the second's proposition that inheritence was a matter of maternal relationship. Certainly the kings had primary wives, and the mantle of kingship was supposed to pass to the children of that union, but such was not always the case. Tut had no children, which may be the result of a possible incestious relationship where the children did not survive, to which the throne could be passed. In that case, his Viceroy married Tut's teenage wife to consolidate his claim to the throne...not long after which she vanished from official records. I can't recall who the throne was passed to after his death, but I doubt it was the offspring of any relationship between the true queen and the Viceroy. But, Tut was likely a member of the Akhenaten bloodline, which we all know did not go over very well with the establishment in Egypt of the time.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering that is the case as fact, that still doesn't equate to Egytian's having a mighty empire because of incest. While the cousin marrying of the Euros for purposes of alliances does.

That's kind of what I'm saying. There's no concrete evidence that incest was actually practiced, over being simply symbolic. Genetic testing of the royal mummies might clear this up, but up to this point there are so many missing bodies that it's impractical; especially given the number of wives a Pharaoh might have. Also, the possible damage to the bodies must be considered.

All of that, to me at least, has to be weighed against the benefit of solving the mysteries and gaining the knowledge v. disrupting their burials. If I had my druthers, the bodies would be placed back in their tombs and left alone. But the evidence they provide (and tourist dollars they generate) contradict that desire.

back to the actual topic at hand......

ofcourse incest increased to odds of deformed offspring. You inherit half of your chromosomes from your mother, half from your father. Of those you will have 1 dominnant and 1 recessive for every pair.

if both of your parents inheretid their genes from the same gene pool, it is likely they both inherited a defective gene, even if recessive in both. If both parents recessive gene get's passed to the offspring.......it can't be recessive anymore. One has to be dominant. If that gene causes 6 toes or 3 arms, guess how many toes the child is going to have. It's no longer a crap shoot that you inherit it as a recessive gene and it shows up generations down the line if at all before it is bred out.

Let's say gene 2 causes a mutation. If your mom has a 1 & 2, your dad has a 3 & 4. You will get one of those from each so you may end up with any combination of one from each and even if 2 is inherited from your mom it may be recessive. If both your mom and dad have 1&2, it's a much greater likelihood that you will inherit the 2 gene. It's very possible that you will inherit 2 and 2, meaning you're screwed.

I read a study conducted about this very subject a few years back. The conclusion was that no species, based on empirical evidence, could produce healthy viable offspring after 6 continuous generations of inbreeding. It's all a numbers game. Every generation you're doubling your chances of inheriting a harmful gene. After 6 generations, any and all defects will be pronounced.

okay......you can get back to discussing if Egyptians did infact inbreed.

I wanst saying the Egyptions were successful "because" of Incest, i said incest did not destroy their society, damaged them little and overall tehir Empire has still been one of the most powerful and perhaps the most iconic the world has/will ever see.

What two people do in the comfort of their own homes is none of my concern, just don't have children. That is all I ask.

Its wrong, no real debate about it and for the love of everything do not have children.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Csar Nicholas the 2nd's son was hemophiliac because of interbreeding.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was getting Edward VII confused with Edward VI.

http://www.sciencecases.org/hemo/hemo.asp

On another note, did FDR's children have haemophilia?

Now if soceity didnt frown on eating your own young, incest would both have its merits.

I think the reason incest is looked down upon is to do with the coding of the genes, and has the same reason as to why we are sexual, rather than asexual.

If we continue to reproduce with the same genes, there's no variaty, no alterations and hardly a chance of bettering the species, therefore it's better to look for a mate (preferably an attractive one (as they have the better material)) to better the species, or rather, your genes.

Incest doesn't actually cause diseases, but if there is a disease in a family and both a mother and father have a recessive gene for that disease (which is likely to happen if they have the same parents or grandparents), the child is more likely to have that disease than if the parents are unrelated.

Ignoring taboos, marriage between second cousins and even first cousins is usually harmless. (and often legal).

Originally posted by cococryspies
Incest doesn't actually cause diseases, but if there is a disease in a family and both a mother and father have a recessive gene for that disease (which is likely to happen if they have the same parents or grandparents), the child is more likely to have that disease than if the parents are unrelated.

Ignoring taboos, marriage between second cousins and even first cousins is usually harmless. (and often legal).

Originally posted by lord xyz
What difference would there be if the parents are related or not? In both scenarios, both parents have the recessive gene and you have yet to show any indication incest would have any affect on changing the offspring.

I meant that parents are more likely to share genes for the same disease if they are related. Two people who unrelated could share a few genes by chance but siblings or cousins most likely would.

Originally posted by cococryspies
I meant that parents are more likely to share genes for the same disease if they are related. Two people who unrelated could share a few genes by chance but siblings or cousins most likely would.

Besides, I don't remember it being amoral to reproduce if your offspring would be haemopliciacs.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And they most likely wouldn't share a gene.

Besides, I don't remember it being amoral to reproduce if your offspring would be haemopliciacs.

Just about all reproduction is amoral 😐

On the other hand one could probably argue that it's immoral to have a child with a heightened chance of having to live with hemophilia.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just about all reproduction is amoral 😐

On the other hand one could probably argue that it's immoral to have a child with a heightened chance of having to live with hemophilia.

But, that argument is a violation of the right to free choice.

Stillbirth, perinatal, infant and juvenile mortality rates are all increased significantly with consanguinity of the order of first-cousins; presumably rising even further with even closer relation. See: lethal equivalent alleles.

Its not immoral, but can cause health problems. The same way having children with someone with a family history of cancer can cause your child health problems. It shouldn't stop you from having children with who you want, but be aware of it so you can give that child the best care.

Something I found interesting, we are naturally not attracted to our immediate relatives. Our brains tell us not to like the way our mothers/fathers/siblings smell.

Virginia Andrews obviously had a fascination with incest, considering she wrote a series of novels about it...