for ppl who are excellent with science. if two ppl had sex and their offspring had kids and they mated....?

Question

how do you think that they would turn out?

and yes i'm talking about inbreeding

i want to know essentially if these ppl kept inbreeding would they die out?

Answer 1

Contrary to the belief of the average person, inbreeding does not cause mutations. This doesn't mean that inbreeding is always ok. Inbreeding is a tool that must be used properly to produce benefits.

Every breed of dog, or for that matter, every breed of domesticated animal, wild animal, crop plant, etc, is a product of inbreeding to one degree or another.

Genetic defects are, fortunately, almost always recessive. This is good because the chances that the same two recessive deleterious (bad) genes being paired together are slim in unrelated individuals.

One allele for each trait comes from the mother, and one from the father. Two alleles together (when we are talking about haploid organisms) form a gene. The best example I can think of is to use the allele for blue eyes. Blue eyes in humans is recessive, but brown eyes is dominant. Someone with brown eyes can have the allele for blue eyes, but you wouldn't know it because the brown-eyed allele is dominant, so it masks it. The brown-eyed person could also have two alleles for brown eyes. When a dominant allele inhibits a recessive allele , it is called "dominant masking." If someone is homozygous (They have both of the same genes for a paticular trait, which in this case is blue eyes) for having blue eyes, then they will actually have blue eyes. If this person marries someone who is homozygous for brown eyes, then it will be impossible for their child to have blue eyes. Get a DNA test done on the child. Momma's been cheatin'.

However, if someone heterozygous (the two alleles are not identical) both brown and blue eyes marries someone that is homozygous for blue eyes, there is a chance that the child will inherit the allele for blue eyes from the father, but because of dominant masking, the chances are good that the child will not have blue eyes. There is also a good chance that the child will have the gene for blue eyes, even if his eyes are brown.

If both parents are heterozygous, then the chances are even less that the child will have blue eyes. Again, there is still an excellent chance that he will have the allele for blue eyes.

Now imagine if the gene for blue eyes was bad for us. You should now be able to see why it is good that deleterious genes are recessive.

The average human is estimated to have anywhere from 6 to 15 (or so) deleterious genes, depending on the study you read. There are many more deleterious genes available in humans than this, but this is only what the AVERAGE human has. The reason we don't see very many defects in human babies is because, usually, different families have DIFFERENT deleterious genes. The chances of two people having the same deleterious genes are slim. However, if a man were to father a child with his sister, which is the highest degree of inbreeding, the chances rise up dramatically that these same deleterious genes will be paired up in the offspring. The chances rise or fall depending on the closeness of the familial relationship.

This is very simplified, because most genetic defects, suceptibilities to disease, etc, are not the function of just one pair of alleles, but of many, many different genes that interact with each other in ways we simply don't understand yet.

It should be noted that if there are no deleterious genes in the gene pool of the population, or family, no amount of inbreeding will put them there. Again, inbreeding does not cause deformities and defects. Genes do. Inbreeding simply brings them out into the open, so to speak.

That said, inbreeding is a tool that is used to create healthier populations of animals and plants. Inbreeding exposes these undesirable recessive traits. Using selective pressure, these traits can then actually be discarded from the gene pool. If you were to draw up a pedigree on a pack of wolves, chances are that you would see the same alpha males and females appearing in the pedigree. Nature selects only the strongest, healthiest, most intelligent animal to continue breeding.

A lady at the Wistar Institute did an inbreeding experiment with laboratory rats. She bred two unrelated rats together, took the healthiest male and femal (brother X sister) and bred them together. Out of that litter of rats, she did the same thing, and so on, and so on. After more than 20 consecutive generations, the rats being produced were larger, stronger, lived longer, were more resistant to disease, and had larger litters than the rats which began the experiment. What one needs to realize, however, is that the first few generations probably had a very high percentage of rats in each litter that were defectivve, deformed, weak, etc, and could not be used to continue the experiment. This is because it takes time to weed the deleterious genes out. Also, the experiment would not be able to continue indefinitely, because no matter how strenuous one picks and chooses the best to breed with, eventually, there will be one or two genes that for whatever reason simply couldn't be weeded out.

Such an experiment would never work with humans, even if it were morally or ethically acceptable, or legal, to try. Humans do not have litters of up to 20 babies like rats can, and a human brother and sister might die of old age before they manage to produce a pair of perfectly fit babies.

How bad or good it might go is impossible to say for certain, because as I stated before, you cannot "see" deleterious genes unless you are looking at a subject that has the same ones in a homozygous pair. Some families gene pools are better than others, one can assume, but one can't know, and one can't know which family has the best.

YES! They would absolutely die out.

El Chistoso

Answer 2

Human genetics is such a crapshoot, it's impossible to tell until a thing like that is done. The combination of unusual recessive genes would likely do something noticeable, with a 90% likelihood that it would be unattractive and nonadaptive, I would say.

Answer 3

inbred

take a punnet square and set a random trait
the gene pool would run out of genes, would it not?

Answer 4

average