Phallic Question

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Rodion: Look, I really cba to dig through a long calculation to either find the trivial error or the trivial incorrect assumption. All I will do is cite a basic genetics textbook (here's the website apparently connected to it: http://www.whfreeman.com/iga/):

Your quote doesn't say heterozygote with disease can't increase, it says there's an increase in homozygote in general, which means homozygote without disease can decrease to give room for the increase of both the others. Thus your quote doesn't contradict my post, in fact it just repeats one of the 3 claims I made and proved under the assumption that my biological assumptions hold. Besides, the calculations are done by trivial high school math and should be possible to go through in less than 5 minutes.

The sum of probabilities must always be 1, so with increased homozygosity comes decreased heterozygosity (unless/until allelle frequencies change).

If homozygote for disease increases, heterozygote for disease can increase as well, at the cost of homozygote for no disease decreasing. You're forgetting that we have to look different upon homozygote with disease and homozygote without disease.

Besides, if inbreeding would pay off as you claim, there would be huge consequences to what behavior would be most beneficial, and thus to how humans, and our nearest relatives, would behave. These behaviors are however not observed in our nearest relatives, nor are they very common among human beings:
- it would be common with inbreeding relationships in most animals
- you would be more turned on by your mother and sisters than by non-family members
- only a few in each generation would take part in reproduction
- murdering other individuals in the herd would be nearly harmless, and thus murderous behavior would not be uncommon
- killing the weakest 80% in each generation would be done on a regular basis and would be beneficial for the herd
...basically all the ideologies of the sickest madmen in history would be equal to what would be the most beneficial behavior. So before you claim my argument is wrong, consider that if what you claim is true is true, then you would have to explain why bonobos, common chimps and most humans DON'T exhibit these properties in their behavior, except the occasional human power-hungry sick maniac like Hitler and Stalin (but most scientists agree they became maniacs because of environment rather than genes, for instance both had alcoholic father who beat them as kids, and both grew up during politically unstable times).

[SpawnOfEbil]

Autosomal recessive is not the same as X-linked.

X-linked means that every man who has a faulty X-chromosome has the disease, while females need to have both faulty X chromosomes to have the disease.

Affected males are likely to be too sick to be able to pass on their faulty genes (you missed this out).

[sgsandor]

@ All those who helped answer the questions I apperciate all your help in helping me find the answers to my questions.

@ Any Mod close this thing already, it seems like bad news and I hate to think that I brang that to this community.

[mighty_rome]

It's not your fault sgsandor, your questions were perfectly reasonable. Other people (well, pretty much just one) have caused this thread to get out of hand.

I think it should be closed and deleted, there have been quite a few ugly comments made that are very disrespectful to Jews, Muslims, and many others who read this forum, and we don't need any of this.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I hadn't closed this before since I don't like being a totalitarian moderator, but this thread has seemed to run its course. If there is something EB related you wish to continue, start a new thread. If you want to continue off topic, there is a Backroom.