2006-12-24 10:12:30 · 10 answers · asked by thereisnobathroom! 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Alternative ➔ Other - Alternative
Ignoring the obvious incest taboos and your choice of descriptive terms... the children would probably be normal.
However if a recessive gene for a specific disease or birth defect existed, that disease or birth defect would be much more likely to manifest itself, since both parents would carry the recessive gene...
2006-12-24 11:14:17 · answer #1 · answered by ravenwing42 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A few thousand years ago it was very common for siblings to marrie and have kids to keep the royal blood line going.
But today that gene pool has changed. There is a very good chance that there would be some very serious side affects. From retardation to mild or sever birth defects.
2006-12-25 13:35:18 · answer #2 · answered by Bridget 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chances would have to depend on what traits or disorders youre wondering about, but inbreeding leads to excessive expression of dominant genes in the phenotype (physical traits). Somehow, and this is where my education fails me, this is generally very negative, as seen in European and Egyptian royal families.
Some "special" traits could arise. I mean, statistically, it is possible that the offspring of two siblings would be imbued with the ability to fly or control flame or morph into liquid. Life is a probability wave; anything is technically possible, but inbreeding would only increase the chances of negative traits being expressed.
2006-12-24 12:59:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without knowing each genome it you can't say. You can construct a Punnet Square of supposed characteristics But it won't show all recessive genes or supressed genes. You can say with some degree of certainty that they will have a better chance of "bad" traits than strangers mating. They also have a better than average chance of "Good" traits showing up. After all this is the whole point of selective breeding in agriculture.
Michael
2006-12-26 03:10:58 · answer #4 · answered by m_canoy2002 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2 things.
1) The Gammet square will tell you this.
It depends of the genes.
Unless you talking about siblings sex, in which case you will have a much greater chance, but this is not always the case.
No one would be able to tell would could happen.
2) Retard is not a very socially acseptable word, so aviod using it.
CREED
2006-12-24 10:20:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
During discussions about incest, no-one should use the distorted
argument about incest "causing deformities" in children. The risk is
insignificant, and recessive genes can be easily identified before the marriage, using modern techniques.
2006-12-24 10:21:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ancient egyptian pharoahs married their siblings and finally all turned out to be crazies and the pharoah dynasties died out.
2006-12-24 11:04:44 · answer #7 · answered by David M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ha, yes. I was playing barber with my lil sis when I was about four (my sis was about one or two) and then I cut off a big chunk of her ringlet curls and my mom got all pissed at me. I feel soo guilty now, cuz my sister had such pretty hair when she was younger...*sigh*
2016-03-29 05:52:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
just because she's hot doesn't mean taking family love to a new level is good.
2006-12-26 16:43:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
That's nasty! I would not even think of it! You are sick!
2006-12-25 09:14:59 · answer #10 · answered by Abby 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋