I think we need sarcasm tags.Indeed.
Humans don't grow on trees. You can have a population that goes from a couple of million to a couple of billion through natural evolution in such a short time span. Someone, somewhere, had to have sex with their relatives.
Meaning it's only natural, also meaning we'd probably not exist if this weren't true.
Correct, you can have a population which goes from a couple of million to a couple of billion through natural evolution in such a short time span.
Indeed they are, and though I don't deny the validity of their study, I do not believe there have been any conclusive studies done on humans within the last decade which suggests that mating with genetic similarities causes any form of deformity and such. From my understanding of human development, new genetic deformities don't just pop-up out of the blue. Somewhere in the genetic code of one of the two parents is the problem with the child. Maybe inbreeding may increase the potential of a deformity, as both parents would probably have similar genetic code so they'd both probably have the same deformity in them...
But once you get to cousins, you're already a generation removed. So unless they display obvious genetic problems, I doubt their children would have any problems.
Hang on, are you suggesting we conduct a study on humans to see whether long term inbreeding causes genetic deformities? That sounds slightly unethical, as experiments on hundreds of different species have all produced the same result.
But I know we have both worked our way off topic here.
While it is true short term inbreeding at the cousin scale will not cause problems, over several generations it has been proven that abnormalities will occur.
















