ALL YALL TALKING ABOUT INCEST STFU! LOOK, ADAM AND EVE FUCKED EACH OTHER AND THEIR CHILDRE...

The retards are the kids born from incest.
If you're trolling this message is pretty funny. If not I have something really important to tell you. Adam and Eve never existed.

The same concept applies to evolution. We didn't all just... Spawn in. There was originally only one or two apes who had evolved from something else, had sex and we eventually evolved from the apes' descendants. However you look at it, we're all descendants of incest. Not that i personally condone incest, it's just that i saw your argument was flawed.

That's really not how evolution works... but sure.

Putting the strawman aside, however you want to look at it, there can only have been a few of anything at one point. As i said, everything didn't just spawn in, it happened over time through reproduction. Trace anything back through it's line of reproduction and there has to be an origin. If everything came from something, it's all incest. Literally, just using logic can tell you this.

Not quite aha. There was never an 'original pair' it's not quite how this all goes about sorry.

Evolution works by *populations of organisms* adapting to their environments by having certain desirable (sometimes coincidental) traits, through certain natural processes (e.g., genetic mutation, natural selection). The point of sexual reproduction is to **increase genetic variation** to spur on this process! So no not incest at all.

A small gene pool leads to genetic malformations and diseases - the greater the inbreeding the higher chance of these issues occurring. Which is why some studies suggest we're so 'icky' with incest. We're biologically disinclined to reproduce with our direct siblings/relatives and choose instead to seek out genetic variance.

Your argument ignores the fact that for much of human history, we lived in small tribes where incest was inevitable because individuals from outgroups were either unavailable or considered a threat. That "ickiness" is actually largely culturally instilled: take as evidence the fact that most nonhuman organisms don't have that problem and will breed with any available partner, regardless of whether they are related or not.

What you just said doesn't change what i said... Where do you think those organism groups came from?

I understand how evolution works, explaining it doesn't add anything to the conversation. As i said, there is an origin to anything.Even if humans came from, say, a mass of cells, it doesn't change that the human race logically had to come from a single thing and we're all evolved/bred from that thing and whatever things that evolved into as our origin.

Putting evolution aside, are you denying that all humans have an origin, and as such must all be committing incest as we all share a common "ancestor", though it's not human. What do you think happened? Again, we didn't just spawn in and you're only looking a certain distance back rather than to the beginning, which is where i've been saying our origin is. You're saying "oh well ACTUALLY we evolved from a group of organisms, not one or two", which is irrelevant as you're only looking at a portion of the evolutionary chain. The organisms evolved from something. Those things evolved from something and all of this goes back to a single thing that we all came from. The reason DNA is different, the reason it doesn't LOOK like we're related under a microscope is because of the sheer amount of reproduction after such a long time. The DNA has changed. Incest causes health issues because the DNA is very close to the same in blood relatives as your immediate family will have similar DNA since when you're born your DNA is close to a copy of your parents.

I didn't really have an 'argument' other than to comment that was not how evolution worked. In terms of as for what you're saying....sure, I agree. It's definitely a socially ingrained reaction. But in terms of debating the morals and ethics (as is happening in a lot of comments) of incestuous relationships...it's a whole other ball game and oddly inappropriate with appeals to nature arguments.

There are a number of behaviours that non-human organisms engage in that, within the socio-cultural context that I live in would be completely unacceptable. This also applies to human or collective cultural behaviour from previous parts in history. Just because something is 'natural' or has happened before really isn't an actual argument in it's favour. In fact, vice versa, simply because something is 'unnatural' isn't really an argument to curb certain beliefs or behaviours.

I'm happy for any consenting adults (related or not) to engage in any sort or romantic or sexual relationship. I've really got no dog in that fight - ickiness or otherwise. As for health issues of children - too complicated a topic! As for this comic - when disregarding Adam or Eve or the role of incest in our evolutionary history lol -They're like....not related and they're consenting adults. And gay men...who can't have kids together. I'm unsure of what the issue is.

Incest; the sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other. So, we're referring to the relatives who have sexual relationships in the last part of your statement here - with the similar genetic makeup.

I'm getting a little lost in your point.....everything is linked through an evolutionary chain and therefore we are all a product of incest? Like a philosophical point? Therefore, what...incestuous relationships between actually closely related individuals is.....expand?

Feminism: The advocasy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Do i need to continue to further the point that reality and definition aren't always the same? My point here is that bringing up the definition isn't always a sound argument, especially in cases like this where the words is so charged with subcontext. Of course most people would be discussing morals and society. Anyways, this has all been besides my original point, that being that there IS an origin and it is possible that there were only a few humans when we first evolved to being classed as homosapiens. I brought this forward because you were snidely commenting that Adam and Eve didn't exist, so i thought i'd put in my 2 cents and point out that even if you're looking at creation through the lens of evolution, you can't rule out that there definitely WAS at most only a handful of homosapiens at one time. Logically thinking. You think ALL the organisms (that would evolve into humans) evolved at the same pace? You think all the said evolving organisms evolved equally, becoming human with no issues and no loss of life? At the dawn of humanity, there CAN'T have been many, these all had children, their children had children and that is where the incest began.

You also keep saying "that's not how evolution works", but it really is... You haven't added anything there. Everything you've said is exactly what i said in my 1st response. The leading theory is that humans evolved from apes, i pointed this out as well as that the apes had been breeding long enough for this evolution to take place. I also said that something must've came before the apes, something that evolved into them. Read what i said properly before you try to correct me.

I guess you're arguing that there weren't "only two", but that's just sheer speculation on your part. Me asserting that there were two apes is due to the fact that, in order to breed, there has to be AT LEAST two. A male and female. Two is a guaranteed number, what you're saying is speculation. That being that there were more than two apes at the very beginning of their evolutionary chain. You're guessing that the organisms that evolved into apes all did so at the same time, pace and rate, leading to many apes at the same time.

I didn't comment that Adam and Eve didn't exist aha...that was somebody else. They were just being rude to the OP, maybe you're yelling at them?

But, like, again. So, I don't really disagree, I'm not really sure where you got this idea where I think incest doesn't exist. I posted a definition because you're on a bit of a tangent and that was the topic area (i.e., the apparent objection and moral ambiguity of incestuous relationships) I was commenting on.

Hm, actually you even reiterated what I was along the lines of. Which was that there is, thanks to evolutionary change, this huge array of genetic variation - so we're not even the same anymore....even with dun dun...incestous origins.

@Anon Your original quote: "We're biologically disinclined to reproduce with our direct siblings/relatives and choose instead to seek out genetic variance." This is what I was responding to when I made the point about how other species aren't as picky about what they choose to mate with, so the biological argument against incest is weak.

I'm not arguing in favor of incest, however. I just think it's fun to examine the basis of our own moral code. So often we like to think that it's based on logic, facts, and science, when really it comes down to a personal belief system that has just as little/as much evidence for it as Adam and Eve do.

I don't understand your point. I mean, yes, i agree and knew all of this well before you told me. There is no disagreement there, that isn't what this discussion was about.

We, as in humans. The studies I read didn't suggest it was biologically innate in every species. But really, I should have said we're more psychologically disinclined -which as you said is probably due to cultural belief.

But I totally agree :). I was just sharing what I thought as well - it's an interesting topic. You make an interesting point - we're all so biased by our own perceptions of how the world 'works'.

Just because of this convo, I went and checked up legal penalties for incestuous relationships where I'm from. I was a bit shocked, they're pretty steep - up to 7 years in prison.

Er, very little discussion.

I replied to you above but forgot to specifically 'reply' back sorry. It's a bit hard to read your numerous comments - so just going to leave this here.