Fishteacher73 Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 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)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted April 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 Could one argue that this "source" of mutation was a bit more regular and allowed quicker adaptation than just random transcription errors and ratiatiion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 Watch it. I'm from Arkansas :o Yeah, and I'm form southern Missouri and proud of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted April 2, 2005 Report Share Posted April 2, 2005 Watch it. I'm from Arkansas :oMaybe 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted April 4, 2005 Report Share Posted April 4, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted April 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted April 5, 2005 Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted April 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted April 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 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..... ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queso Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Were they all the red ones..... ;)now that's a good joke. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Were they all the red ones..... ;)Careful.... You are in Texas. Might want to research your family bush. Oops. Tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.