Breeding Homos

[5010]

Wipe that grin off your face, I'm talking about hominids. Right now all we have is homo sapien. Today I thought of a way to get more. Not just more genetic diversity, not just more breeds or races, but more species of man. This has probably been theorized by geneticists already and since I'm not a geneticist I don't know if it has or not.

The formula is simple, but would be considered crazy in a sick perverted way. Why? Because it involves in-breeding, which is culturally associated with child abuse. However, in this case we are talking about adults.

Here's the formula: If a couple is unable to have children, try breeding with a biological sibling before heading off to the infertility clinic or orphanage. Yeah, I know... that's gross. Of course, there are artificial ways to "get er done".

How it would work: Parent is mutated to produce offspring who are infertile with others but fertile with each other. Inbreeding propagates a set of people who are only fertile within the group. This creates a barrier to gene propagation between homo sapiens and this group. A new species is born.

Why do that? Because homo has all its eggs in one basket. In other words, to save homo from mass extinction by diversifying it.

Am I getting the science/evolution right?

[triad]

Hmm, I am no expert on this subject - nor have I even heard of this before... but here is my take.

In-breeding will not only cause mutation of the reproduction system which creates the genetic barrier between the two species, but birth defects that could ultimately void the possibility of a healthy animal. If science were to diversify homosapiens, would we not want to create a strong and healthy sub-species?

Regardless, you're an intelligent homosapien yourself for being able to think that up. I think it is insane, but it is a theory that could potentially save the population of mankind.. or would that be kind-of-mankind.

[5010]

Yeah that makes sense. Even if successful, instead of homo perfectus you get hemo philius. But give them an island somewhere and let natural selection and mutation purify them into contenders.

I was wondering about the original couple. Seeing that infertility to the partner but fertility to the sibling indicates they are a separate species, do they also realize that their previous efferts were acts of beastiality? Can they stay together as long as they abstain and call each other "pet"?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: triad Hmm, I am no expert on this subject - nor have I even heard of this before... but here is my take. In-breeding will not only cause mutation of the reproduction system which creates the genetic barrier between the two species, but birth defects that could ultimately void the possibility of a healthy animal. If science were to diversify homosapiens, would we not want to create a strong and healthy sub-species? Regardless, you're an intelligent homosapien yourself for being able to think that up. I think it is insane, but it is a theory that could potentially save the population of mankind.. or would that be kind-of-mankind.

It depends. There's always the potential to produce healthy offspring regardless of the relationship between parents as long as both parents have a healthy phenotype. You may get a lot of not so healthy phenotypes to go along with that, but there will be a few good ones. On a genetics note, at first inbreeding is highly destructive but in the case of extreme inbreeding that continues for several generations eventually all the dangerous recessive genes will be eliminated; they are more likely to surface and so selection will act on them much faster.

To 5010, we don't really want more species of hominids. Intelligent life on Earth is divided enough as it is, and all we have is skin color and religion to fight about. Lets colonize other planets instead.

[triad]

Yeah!? Lets cause irreversible global warming in other atmospheres!


Actually, now that I think about it - the resources on another planet might be useless to humans. Does it burn? Is it strong?

If we bring fossil fuel with us... will it even combust on the said planet?


5010,

Natural selection would occur - yes. But I think disease would exist much more in an inbred colony than in a diverse genetic society. If you share 50% of your dads and 50% of your mom's genes, then a daughter breeds with her father (SICK!), then that offspring breeds with the daughter (their mother), would they not have 100% the same genes? Its so confusing.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: 5010 Yeah that makes sense. Even if successful, instead of homo perfectus you get hemo philius. But give them an island somewhere and let natural selection and mutation purify them into contenders. I was wondering about the original couple. Seeing that infertility to the partner but fertility to the sibling indicates they are a separate species, do they also realize that their previous efferts were acts of beastiality? Can they stay together as long as they abstain and call each other "pet"?

Hmm...it makes me think of the series Blood+. Yay vampires!

But seriously. Inbreeding always has the effect of weakening the genes, creating less functional offspring with each generation. Not only that, but eventually the offspring will probably be entirely sterile.

[gallo]

Quote by: 5010 Am I getting the science/evolution right?

No. You're not even close.

[gallo]

Quote by: triad In-breeding will not only cause mutation of the reproduction system which creates the genetic barrier between the two species, but birth defects that could ultimately void the possibility of a healthy animal.

That's pretty much nonsense. Inbreeding causes what is known in domestic animals as pure breeds or thoroughbreds. You might know them as Holsteins, Jerseys, and Angus in cattle, or Arabians, Tennessee Walkers, and Clydesdales in horses, or Boxers, German Shepherds, Poodles, Beagles, and Rottweilers in dogs. Think of any species of domestic animal and the pure breeds are the result of inbreeding. You see, inbreeding doesn't cause mutations (please learn what you are talking about before you speak). It does increase the likelihood that an unfavorable recessive gene will become apparent. That has been and still is the case in many pure breed species. We owned a poodle that had a congenital birth defect that was caused by a recessive gene. It was partially correctable by surgery and that poor thing lived for more than 17 years. She was happy and without pain and only wanted to be loved.

If science were to diversify homosapiens, would we not want to create a strong and healthy sub-species?

But, of course, inbreeding will accomplish exactly the opposite. Inbreeding tends to reduce genetic diversity. Anybody with only the slightest knowledge of genetics and population genetics knows that random breeding in a large population is the most efficient means to increased diversity.

Regardless, you're an intelligent homosapien yourself for being able to think that up.

I'm not too sure about that. What it does show is ignorance of genetics and population genetics.

I think it is insane, but it is a theory that could potentially save the population of mankind.. or would that be kind-of-mankind.

So you think that by reducing the genetic diversity of our species you will "save mankind?" From what? Is there some sort of specific threat that reducing genetic diversity will solve?

[gallo]

Quote by: 5010 Yeah that makes sense.

Only if you don't know what you are talking about.

Even if successful, instead of homo perfectus you get hemo philius. But give them an island somewhere and let natural selection and mutation purify them into contenders.

Contenders for what. So let me get this straight. You want to reduce genetic diversity, increase the influence of harmful recessive genes by inbreeding, and then isolate these organisms and somehow expect some sort of nonsense purification through mutation (increase in diversity) and natural selection (decrease in diversity)? Have I got it? What's wrong with mutation and natural selection in the real environment in the first place. How, exactly, do you think that a species becomes purified?

I was wondering about the original couple.

What original couple? No such thing has ever existed for any species. If you don't understand that, why on earth are you talking about evolution? You only make yourself look foolish with such nonsense.

Seeing that infertility to the partner but fertility to the sibling indicates they are a separate species,

They do no such thing. Wherever did you get that silly idea?

do they also realize that their previous efferts were acts of beastiality?

Did that babble actually make sense to you when you typed it?

Can they stay together as long as they abstain and call each other "pet"?

What? Do you live in some sort of cartoon world? How is that even meaningful on any level?

[triad]

Quote by: gallo That's pretty much nonsense.

HAH, no it is not, but let's play this game.

Inbreeding causes what is known in domestic animals as pure breeds or thoroughbreds.

Wrong. Firstly, thoroughbred is a specific breed of horse.

Secondly, it isn't inbreeding until there is development of negative characteristics; pure breeding is only when the offspring has the purebred traits.

You see, inbreeding doesn't cause mutations (please learn what you are talking about before you speak).

I can speak whatever the hell I want, don't get all pretentious here, that shit doesn't fly with me.

It does increase the likelihood that an unfavorable recessive gene will become apparent. That has been and still is the case in many pure breed species.

Again, it isn't pure breeding if the recessive gene becomes apparent, then it is inbreeding.

But, of course, inbreeding will accomplish exactly the opposite. Inbreeding tends to reduce genetic diversity. Anybody with only the slightest knowledge of genetics and population genetics knows that random breeding in a large population is the most efficient means to increased diversity.

And I clearly knew that, hence my "birth defects" statement.

I'm not too sure about that. What it does show is ignorance of genetics and population genetics.

You have missed the point of this thread entirely. 5010 is not suggesting that this is a way to improve population genetics, but a way to make another species of human. Please re-read the thread before you make allegations of this sort.

So you think that by reducing the genetic diversity of our species you will "save mankind?" From what? Is there some sort of specific threat that reducing genetic diversity will solve?

You obviously didn't notice this thread is a hypothesis, as in, a hypothetical scenario of what would happen if we actually experimented this. I am not actually stating it will guaranteed save mankind, it does have a chance, however. Think about the word "purebred", then reconsider what I said.

[5010]

Quote by: gallo So let me get this straight. You want to reduce genetic diversity, increase the influence of harmful recessive genes by inbreeding, and then isolate these organisms and somehow expect some sort of nonsense purification through mutation (increase in diversity) and natural selection (decrease in diversity)? Have I got it?

Nope. First of all, I'm only talking about inbreeding those who are infertile in relation to non-siblings but fertile to siblings. The point is that because they are not naturally/physically able to reproduce among homo sapiens we can consider them as a different species. The "original couple" I refer to is when the non-sapien partners with a sapien before failing miserably at reproduction. One could insert another step: try with other partners before going to the sibling. This helps tell which partner of the couple is a sapien and which isn't. The references to pets and beastiality are in jest.

Second of all, if a new species only has 1 family, then your natural choices are inbreeding or extinction. Decrease in diversity is preferable to extinction. The offspring who successfully breed with sapiens would be considered sapiens. The others would only be able to breed with members of the family spawned by the original siblings. This would trim sapien-compatible genes from the family as it propagates.

If you think about the conditions I am speaking about, you may realize that all I am suggesting is that ignorance and cultural/moral bias are maybe causing the extinction of branches out of homo sapien's stem.

[Praxius]

Quote by: 5010 Wipe that grin off your face, I'm talking about hominids. Right now all we have is homo sapien. Today I thought of a way to get more. Not just more genetic diversity, not just more breeds or races, but more species of man. This has probably been theorized by geneticists already and since I'm not a geneticist I don't know if it has or not. The formula is simple, but would be considered crazy in a sick perverted way. Why? Because it involves in-breeding, which is culturally associated with child abuse. However, in this case we are talking about adults. Here's the formula: If a couple is unable to have children, try breeding with a biological sibling before heading off to the infertility clinic or orphanage. Yeah, I know... that's gross. Of course, there are artificial ways to "get er done". How it would work: Parent is mutated to produce offspring who are infertile with others but fertile with each other. Inbreeding propagates a set of people who are only fertile within the group. This creates a barrier to gene propagation between homo sapiens and this group. A new species is born. Why do that? Because homo has all its eggs in one basket. In other words, to save homo from mass extinction by diversifying it. Am I getting the science/evolution right?

Humans who are only fertile to their own genitic makeup or as you put it... produces offspring from other family members cause imperfections over time in their genetic code, as we are designed to be merging genes with one another... if you have your male impregnate a woman of the same family and the genes are identical, then there is no new strands being introduced, and gradually degreades the family line.

Results of inbreeding Inbreeding may result in a far higher expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected. As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including: • reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability • increased genetic disorders • fluctuating facial asymmetry • lower birth rate • higher infant mortality • slower growth rate • smaller adult size • loss of immune system function. Natural selection works to remove individuals who acquire the above types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, many more individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental stresses, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.

Inbreeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, even if your theory worked for sometime.... as soon as a modified desiese comes along which affect directly that line of genes, then they will all be wiped out.... which is the main reason why we share our genes during reproduction of the human species. The vast variety of genes in our human species helps protect our species from mass extinction.

The reduced genetic diversity that results from inbreeding may mean a species may not be able to adapt to changes in environmental conditions. Each individual will have similar immune systems, as immune systems are genetically based. Where a species becomes endangered, the population may fall below a minimum whereby the forced interbreeding between the remaining animals will result in extinction.

Now if you were talking about mixing genes with only your race, then that would work for some time as well.... but then we get into what the Nazi's tried to do, and then we get to go through another era of "Who's Race is Better."

In my opinion, the only path humans can take is what we are doing now. Mix the races over the centuries until there is only one human race... no blacks, whites, asians, etc..... just weird looking humans by today's standards.

[triad]

Quote by: Praxius In my opinion, the only path humans can take is what we are doing now. Mix the races over the centuries until there is only one human race... no blacks, whites, asians, etc..... just weird looking humans by today's standards.

I think humans should just have transparent skin... that way we only see the insides and we'll really know we're all the same. Unless people start judging eachother by the shape of their liver...

OMG becky, like look at her liver - it is like SO big.

[5010]

Quote by: Praxius In other words, even if your theory worked for sometime.... as soon as a modified desiese comes along which affect directly that line of genes, then they will all be wiped out.

That's one possible outcome. Since we are talking a new hominid branch from modern sapiens, they should be just as intelligent as the rest of us and able to understand their precarious line and how to protect themselves from this outcome. Currently, culture prevents infertile people from finding out if they are actually fertile within their family and thus a new species. So new species are doomed to extinction by ignorance of their existence.

[Praxius]

Oh you mean like this:



Yeah I imagine we'd be quite attractive.

[Thanatos]

Inbreeding will produce things that are very well adapted to exactly one set of circumstances and possibly speciation. Hence, thoroughbreds. A purebred poodle is very very good at getting ducks out of freezing cold ponds in France. Its not so good at general dog things, like actually killing things on its own or surviving without a human to trim and untangle its coat.

You could create a purebred human that does one specialized task. There are rare traits for thick body fur, heat retention and also webbed feet (beat that, fuzzy canines!), and if you really went at it you could make a human designed to get ducks out of freezing cold ponds in France. Or a dedicated soldier. Or a doctor, or a leader, or a physicist, or a dedicated duck retrieval subspecies groomer. Read The Mote in God's Eye.

There are problems. What if duck hunting goes out of style and suddenly Homo duckretrieveus is purely decorative like poodles? How will this species adapt fast with essentially no genetic diversity in its gene pool?

Overspecialized species are almost always dead ends. Without genetic diversity and the ability to survive pretty much anywhere a species is going to go extinct eventually. This is why generalists like cockroaches are still around after all this time; no matter what happens there will always be a way for them to survive. Homo duckretrieveus could survive anyway; they're intelligent and can operate an electric razor if they want to get a job as a doctor. However, their lives will be more difficult.

You should also keep some normal humans around. A superspecialist subspecies can't evolve much on its own; there's no alleles to shuffle around and if much changes then its no longer useful for its old role and has to think really fast to find a new one. A large, diverse gene bank for random mutation and pure survival-based selection would be necessary so you can create new types of superspecialists.

It would also be horribly horribly immoral to create a species of human dedicated to, say, combat or fishing ducks out of ponds but that's beside the point.