You must be logged in to view this image. (learn more)

Children: 1 child (learn more) show »
Blacklisted
  • Comments
  • nanocpu said:
    Unfortunately, it's pretty much guaranteed that the baby of such relationship will be genetically abnormal and/or heavily disabled.

    I would totally agree with you if the world of these two lived in follows any of our laws of biology.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 18
  • nanocpu said:
    Unfortunately, it's pretty much guaranteed that the baby of such relationship will be genetically abnormal and/or heavily disabled.

    Not really though? The risk is like 4% for the first generation of incest compared to 2% for 51st cousins.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 13
  • nanocpu said:
    Unfortunately, it's pretty much guaranteed that the baby of such relationship will be genetically abnormal and/or heavily disabled.

    You do realize how common incest is amoungst animals, yes? They are more likely to produce a healthy litter than say if these were humans. My dog is an incest baby and the only thing wrong is he has extra toes. But that's just common in dogs.

  • Reply
  • |
  • -7
  • maystristan223 said:
    You do realize how common incest is amoungst animals, yes? They are more likely to produce a healthy litter than say if these were humans. My dog is an incest baby and the only thing wrong is he has extra toes. But that's just common in dogs.

    You could not be more wrong here. Most mammals practices incest avoidance. Domestic dogs is one of the few exceptions because their strong association with humans for survival has eliminated their need for strong parental investments and thus allowing them to breed promiscuously.

    FYI, your example of your inbred puppy "just" having an extra toe is literally an example of why inbreeding is BAD. If one generation of inbreeding already produces unwanted phenotype, imagine what negative genotypes that may affect its health might also be inherited (that you don't know about yet).

  • Reply
  • |
  • 7