Let us look at all this from another angle. Let us suppose physical fitness is no longer considered a factor in evolutionary fitness or having genes worthy of being passed on.
There are two factors that determine a species', and indeed an individual organism's, evolutionary fitness -- internal resources and external resources. External are food, shelter, safety. Internal are genes, physical prowess, ability to reproduce. For the sake of this discussion let us assume that a species has no complex thought processes or capacity for empathy or compassion. We shall also assume that any given organism of a species does not possess these capabilities.
If internal resources are paramount, then this would be a good motivator to spread the gene pool out as much as possible. This is a good motivator against inbreeding. This would select for fitter organisms because a nonrelated individual could introduce beneficial genes into particular family's gene pool. Or possibly, an outsider's genes would contain a dominant gene that could cancel out an unwanted recessive gene in a family's gene pool. [[[gravitating]]]] for the ability to produce healthy offspring.
However, if external resources of food and shelter are most important, then consanguinity is the way to go. This is not as strange as it sounds.
Also there is the grave risk that an outsider alien to the family bloodline could bring in a number of undesirable genes.
This is why the whole entire freakin royal line of ancient Egypt married brother and sister to each other, as was customary. This is why European royals would marry within their families. This is why current Saudi royals and other Saudi wealthy families arrange marriages between first cousins.
If only the ability to obtain resources and sustenance is the important factor, then this is a pretty good argument in favor of inbreeding.
All inbreeding of royal families throughout history has been motivated by the twin dynamics of gene pool preservation and keeping the money in the family.
--Ancient Egyptians.
--Elizabethan and Victorian Europe.
--Current-day Saudi royal family and other rich families.
--Neanderthals -- there weren't that many of them around. They would have had to inbreed to some extent.
--OR-- evolutionists could make the *logical* conclusion that all these things are primitivity, savagery, degeneration, and devolution. None of these things are in fact true evolution.
There are two factors that determine a species', and indeed an individual organism's, evolutionary fitness -- internal resources and external resources. External are food, shelter, safety. Internal are genes, physical prowess, ability to reproduce. For the sake of this discussion let us assume that a species has no complex thought processes or capacity for empathy or compassion. We shall also assume that any given organism of a species does not possess these capabilities.
If internal resources are paramount, then this would be a good motivator to spread the gene pool out as much as possible. This is a good motivator against inbreeding. This would select for fitter organisms because a nonrelated individual could introduce beneficial genes into particular family's gene pool. Or possibly, an outsider's genes would contain a dominant gene that could cancel out an unwanted recessive gene in a family's gene pool. [[[gravitating]]]] for the ability to produce healthy offspring.
However, if external resources of food and shelter are most important, then consanguinity is the way to go. This is not as strange as it sounds.
Also there is the grave risk that an outsider alien to the family bloodline could bring in a number of undesirable genes.
This is why the whole entire freakin royal line of ancient Egypt married brother and sister to each other, as was customary. This is why European royals would marry within their families. This is why current Saudi royals and other Saudi wealthy families arrange marriages between first cousins.
If only the ability to obtain resources and sustenance is the important factor, then this is a pretty good argument in favor of inbreeding.
All inbreeding of royal families throughout history has been motivated by the twin dynamics of gene pool preservation and keeping the money in the family.
--Ancient Egyptians.
--Elizabethan and Victorian Europe.
--Current-day Saudi royal family and other rich families.
--Neanderthals -- there weren't that many of them around. They would have had to inbreed to some extent.
--OR-- evolutionists could make the *logical* conclusion that all these things are primitivity, savagery, degeneration, and devolution. None of these things are in fact true evolution.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment