*i*n*c*e*s*t* (???)

[Antoninus Verus]

I feel that the only way to explain these anomolies is with evolution. There are natural taboos against incest throughout all of nature and nature is not religious.

The taboo's evolved through our own observation of what happend during incestuous families. Many royal families didnt want thier bloodline to be polluted or thinned by adding someone else, so they married a brother and sister or cousins. One royal family during the Middle Ages (The name escapes me at the moment) married and bred EXSCLUSIVELY with family members, the resulting genetic defects were...interesting, the last member of the family had a chin that was so deformed that he couldnt close his mouth completely. People began to figgure out "Sleep with family = Wierd kids" so it turned into something prohibited because they observed the after effects, THEN it turned into a taboo thing

 

[holyorders]

Just because Eve was made from Adam's rib does not mean that they were somwhow related.

It is a mystery of what really happened that we will probably won't find out til later.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Just because Eve was made from Adam's rib does not mean that they were somwhow related.

I beg to differ. Related (blood relation) means that you came from the same parent(s) as annother person. God made Adam, ergo he made Adam's rib. Eve came from Adam's rib which came from God. Which means one of two things. (A Eve is Adam's daughter, or (B Eve is his sister. Ither way its incest.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The taboo's evolved through our own observation of what happend during incestuous families. ...snip... People began to figgure out "Sleep with family = Wierd kids" so it turned into something prohibited because they observed the after effects, THEN it turned into a taboo thing

And you know this because?
Or maybe this is a (reasonable) assumption you are making?

Actually I'm not entirely certain it is a reasonable assumption. IIRC, the genetic problem with incest is when you have a defect being passed on by a recessive gene. So you only run into problems if there is a defect present, and the defect may well show up even in the absense of incest, especially since most populations of hunter-gatherers (and small villages) were relatively inbred even without incest.

From a sociological perspective I would suggest that incest was discouraged because it fails to promote ties between families.

The problem with incest goes beyond genetics, existing strong familial ties interfer with the marital ties that should form.

From a more modern perspective they also cast a very dark shadow on the possibility of free choice. Parent-child relationships involve such a power differential that the idea that there was true choice on the child's part is a joke. Brother-sister relationships, esp. when "blessed" by the parent are also very questionable in that regard

 

[Antoninus Verus]

And you know this because?
Or maybe this is a (reasonable) assumption you are making?

I read history and I have a logic center of my brain. I dont KNOW it for certain but with the evidence at hand it seems to be a reasonable and logical assumption, plus that combined with various parts of what I know about history add to the veracity of such a statement.

Actually I'm not entirely certain it is a reasonable assumption. IIRC, the genetic problem with incest is when you have a defect being passed on by a recessive gene. So you only run into problems if there is a defect present, and the defect may well show up even in the absense of incest, especially since most populations of hunter-gatherers (and small villages) were relatively inbred even without incest.

Then how did pre-historic hunter gatherer groups procreate without serious genetic consequences?

From a more modern perspective they also cast a very dark shadow on the possibility of free choice. Parent-child relationships involve such a power differential that the idea that there was true choice on the child's part is a joke. Brother-sister relationships, esp. when "blessed" by the parent are also very questionable in that regard

An abuse of power by the parent is certainly possible. But I fail to see the brother-sister relationship. I had two good friends, both of whom were sisters and both of whom had been sleeping together, in both senses of that word, since they were 12. Nither of them were malicious towards the other, both of them seemed, well...rather innocent in that regard. Its hard to explain but I do understand where your comming from with that statement.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Then how did pre-historic hunter gatherer groups procreate without serious genetic consequences?

By having larger groups than I expected

Aboriginal tribes of Australia numbered about 500 people [roughly 20 bands of 25 people] and these were territorial, the size of a tribal territory strongly, inversely correlated with mean annual rainfall. Burenhult (1994) noted that to prevent inbreeding a social group must have at least 475 people. Most recorded hunter-gatherer groups comprise between 500 and 800 people.

http://cogprints.org/177/00/Leavitt.html
looks interesting, but I don't have time to look into it just now

 

[Avatar]

yikes