When did icest become a sin?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
were they brother and sister? i dont think they could have been if they were created to be brother and sister they have to have the same mom and dad but they didnt have neither, and i dont remember the bible ever saying they were related.

But all of their kids would be siblings.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Love the Bullfrog! I got the connection🙂 So if an allele was recessive, it would have to occur several times independently I assume, if it was ever to be bumped up to dominant status, right? Several times in the available population I mean, not one in Australia and another in New Zealand where they could not interbreed because of geography. I was thinking ...[text shortened]... ounds like computation to me. What do you say? I am thinking the DNA itself is the computer.

Love the Bullfrog! I got the connection🙂

Thanks, nice to know I still got the ol' magic...

So if an allele was recessive, it would have to occur several times independently I assume, if it was ever to be bumped up to dominant status, right?

Well, no, not really. You get two sets of chromosomes, one from yer ma, and one from yer pa. Each has a copy of the same gene, called an allele. Some are recessive, and will only be expressed when you carry two sets of the allele, and some are dominant, which will be expressed over and above the recessive gene.
The thing about recessive alleles, is that they can sit there in the population going from parent to offspring without any negative consequences. Once they evolve then they'll be spread through the population, provided that the organisms have on average at least two progeny. As genes are discrete, they don't get broken down or lessened through generations, irrespective of the partner allele they share a body with.

Let's say a hypothetical animal is a recessive mutant. It has 4 offspring. On average, 2 of those children will carry the mutant gene - the proportion of that gene in the population has went up, even if neither of the children or even perhaps the parent show the phenotypic effects of that mutant gene.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]Love the Bullfrog! I got the connection🙂

Thanks, nice to know I still got the ol' magic...

So if an allele was recessive, it would have to occur several times independently I assume, if it was ever to be bumped up to dominant status, right?

Well, no, not really. You get two sets of chromosomes, one from yer ma, and one from yer ...[text shortened]... children or even perhaps the parent show the phenotypic effects of that mutant gene.[/b]

But they don't become a dominant mutation till two recessives mate, right? At that point the new version finally comes out.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But they don't become a dominant mutation till two recessives mate, right? At that point the new version finally comes out.

No, no. The dominant / recessive distinction is only which allele is expressed if both are present. If you have an organism which has two copies of the recessive allele then it will express the recessive phenotype.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, no. The dominant / recessive distinction is only which allele is expressed if both are present. If you have an organism which has two copies of the recessive allele then it will express the recessive phenotype.

So how does a recessive end up being dominant or does it always stay recessive? If it stays recessive doesn't that mean the potential mutation is never expressed?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So how does a recessive end up being dominant or does it always stay recessive? If it stays recessive doesn't that mean the potential mutation is never expressed?

It's always recessive. Like ginger hair or blue eyes, for example (actually that;s a little more complicated, since these are multigene things). The recessive phenotype is expressed when the individual gets two recessive alleles - one from each parent.

Originally posted by whodey
Assuming the abiogenesis myth is the correct scenerio, how do you get around this dilemma? Our beginnings would still have been an incestuous one, no? Does this mean that atheists approve of incest as well?

If abiogenesis is the correct scenario, early organisms would have been asexual. Sexuality I think probably developed as a trait where haploid cells evolved the ability to fuse with one another. As with all processes, this fusion event is reversible. This fusion/fission process would have been the first sexual reproduction and it would have evolved in an asexually reproducing population. The organisms would have been able to both sexually and asexually reproduce. I suppose a cell would have evolved some mechanism for fusing with other cells; the other cell wouldn't have needed a receptor in the beginning and would not have necessarily been related to the sexual cell at all.

The cycle of fusion/fission or diploiid/haploid occurs among every sexually reproducing species in the world.

Originally posted by whodey
Assuming the abiogenesis myth is the correct scenerio, how do you get around this dilemma? Our beginnings would still have been an incestuous one, no? Does this mean that atheists approve of incest as well?

Depends on what you mean by "incestuous".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Originally posted by David C
Depends on what you mean by "incestuous".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Very good point - I hadn't even thought of parthenogenesis.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Very good point - I hadn't even thought of parthenogenesis.

It does tend to slip the mind, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole

Why did I never hear this passage in church?

Because too many pedophiles would take it as permission to rape their daughters.