How long did the family of Adam & Eve practice incest?

Post by **_moksha** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:36 pm

I assume that Adam and his clonal sister Eve had a lot in common.

So how many generations need to transpire before it quits being incest? Probably longer than usual when clones are involved.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:54 pm

Evolutionary theory as I understand it would require much, much more incest. What's your point?

Post by **_Blixa** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:15 pm

Can clones commit traditional incest?

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:21 pm

Blixa wrote:Can clones commit traditional incest?

I figure it would be closer to abusing "the factory" (a.k.a. the “M word”) than incest.

The Nehor wrote:Evolutionary theory as I understand it would require much, much more incest. What's your point?

Never really thought of it that way... interesting.

Post by **_Tarski** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:28 pm

The Nehor wrote:Evolutionary theory as I understand it would require much, much more incest.

why?

what is your point?

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:33 am

Isnt this like the third time Porters started this exact same thread?

Post by **_ajax18** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:48 am

The Nehor wrote:Evolutionary theory as I understand it would require much, much more incest. What's your point?

I think you're onto something Nehor. I have said this for years after learning this in my genetics class. "Incest is actually more beneficial to the species and the gene pool after enough time passes. The bad genes simply die out. Nonincestual breeding often masks a nasty recessive allele. While the immediate effect visible to us seems good, in the long run this is not good."

This is a basic fact of genetics. Yet when you present it to people, you get this knee jerk reaction as if to say I'm crazy. Yet it's true.

That being said, the story is obviously allegorical. I always questioned why the people quit living for 900 years. I suspected it was due to incest but my suspicions were incorrect.

I question whether any of the people living upwards of 800 years ever existed at all. Even Abraham living to be 175 seems like a stretch.

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 am

Gazelam wrote:isn't this like the third time Porters started this exact same thread?

Proof please.

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:12 am

ajax18 wrote:That being said, the story is obviously allegorical. I always questioned why the people quit living for 900 years. I suspected it was due to incest but my suspicions were incorrect.

I question whether any of the people living upwards of 800 years ever existed at all. Even Abraham living to be 175 seems like a stretch.

*Cue Janice Capp Perry lame song "With GAWD ain't nuttin impossible"*

Post by **_The Nehor** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:48 am

ajax18 wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Evolutionary theory as I understand it would require much, much more incest. What's your point?

I think you're onto something Nehor. I have said this for years after learning this in my genetics class. "Incest is actually more beneficial to the species and the gene pool after enough time passes. The bad genes simply die out. Nonincestual breeding often masks a nasty recessive allele. While the immediate effect visible to us seems good, in the long run this is not good."

This is a basic fact of genetics. Yet when you present it to people, you get this knee jerk reaction as if to say I'm crazy. Yet it's true.

That being said, the story is obviously allegorical. I always questioned why the people quit living for 900 years. I suspected it was due to incest but my suspicions were incorrect.

I question whether any of the people living upwards of 800 years ever existed at all. Even Abraham living to be 175 seems like a stretch.

I would agree, most of the problems with incest are social and not genetic. I believe it would be unhealthy to allow it now but under certain conditions it could be beneficial.