lowzeewee Posted January 15, 2003 Posted January 15, 2003 Traditionally-strict CHinese parents normally dont allow their children to marry a guy/girl with the same surname coz they think they were related a long long long time ago like BC and their future child genetically will be 'not very smart?'SOmething it doesnt occur with only chinese,arabs too,an arab woman was stabbed by her father on the day of her marriage to a distant relative.Share yr opinions on that
IxianMace Posted January 15, 2003 Posted January 15, 2003 I believe that for someone to marry and/or have a sexual relationship with someone that is related to them, is disgusting, and just not right. Incest.However if someone has the same surname as someone else, but they are not related to one another in any way, then I don't see how it could be a problem as far as relationships go. I think these traditions are highly paranoid and misguided. Just my 2 solaris. :-
Caid Ivik Posted January 15, 2003 Posted January 15, 2003 Roman imperial dynasties were so made. Maybe that's why Nero and Caligula were so... mentally imperfect.
Anathema Posted January 15, 2003 Posted January 15, 2003 Wasn't Nero forced to mary his sister by his father?Marrying somebody who is called like you are is...odd, but not wrong or anything. Silly chinese :P
Acriku Posted January 15, 2003 Posted January 15, 2003 I think only blood matters when you marry someone with the same surname. You could be "interested" in the wife of your brother, in other words sister-in-law, but it wouldn't be incest to me.
emprworm Posted January 15, 2003 Posted January 15, 2003 incest before the time of Moses was not immoral, nor was it unhealthy :)
Anathema Posted January 15, 2003 Posted January 15, 2003 Why not? Because there were no geneticly determined deseases?
lowzeewee Posted January 16, 2003 Author Posted January 16, 2003 sorry i forgot to mention,when a lady with a surname of Li marries a man with the surname of Heng,she would have to change her surname to Heng,so pls rethink
nemafakei Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 Pre-750BC, 50% of egyptians married their siblings. The concept of genetic complications was unknown to them, and those that got them died too young to pass them on. Only carriers survived (who have 50% chance of producing other carries, 25% chance of sufferers if they married siblings).
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 the reason for malformities due to incest is because of impurities in the genetic code.evolution doesn't do a very good job explaining why, after all these millions of years, those impurities could not be "remedied". The impurities are actually a loss of information. When 2 siblings mate, the impurities of the genes in one precisely match the impurities in the genes of the other, so that both of them become dominant. hence deformities. poor, poor evolution - or should I say devolution
nemafakei Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 Recessiveness and mutation is the answer.Recessiveness"so that both of them become dominant": More accurately, the two recessives are not superceded by a normal dominant. Sufferers are likely in incest. But any carrier will not be weeded out by evolution. They will have fewer surviving children - but only when mated with other carriers. Otherwise (ie most of the time), all the children will be healthy, and half would still be carriers.There is therefore no reason for evolution to be able to remove recessive genetic diseases.MutationAll the time, our DNA is being attacked by radiation and other things. Sometimes, the DNA is damaged - when this happens in certain ways, cells with problems (ie these diseases) develop - if this occurs in cells in reproductive organs, then the fault is passed on.
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 Recessiveness"so that both of them become dominant": More accurately, the two recessives are not superceded by a normal dominantwell that is exactly like i said. those recessive genes are information losses that when matched cause a dominant, hence a deformity.evolution after millions and uber millions of years cannot correct those information losses? lol. it is devolution in its finest.
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 Dominant and recessive genes are a bit confusing by the name. Dominant doesn't mean, whenever a dominant shows up it beats down the recessive. If a gene trait is homozygous dominant, that means for the trait to become the phenotype, it would need to be GG. If it is homozygous recessive it would need to be gg, and heterozygous needs to be Gg. If a disease is inherently dominant, all it needs is GG or Gg. gg would only carry the trait. If it is a recessive disease, it needs to be gg, like sickle cell disease, but I am Gg thus a carrier. If I mate with my sister (all siblings are carriers) then I have a 50% chance of getting it, same would happen for someone who isn't my relative but is a carrier. But for dominant diseases, it becomes a 75% chance of getting it.
nemafakei Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 "Evolution after millions and uber millions of years cannot correct those information losses?"What makes you expect it to?"those recessive genes are information losses"What?They're just bad information. Unless you're contradicting yourself?
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 Nothing is lost, the allele is still there, just the dominant allele trait hides the recessive allele trait (if heterozygous).
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 of course its loss. when a child is born mutated, there is a loss of information in its genes. it is the genes that inform the life how to grow. this is a code that is being obeyed by the host. when the code gets scrambled, what was once a genetic sequence that meant something now is a jumbled mess that means nothing and harms the lifeform.
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 When genes are deleted, they are put back into the cytoplasm. Unless you know of some hidden pocket of non-existence it goes into?
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 its irrelevant where they go, all that matters is information. information is what brings about normal deveopment of a lifeform. mutations interferre with information. they do not add to it
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 And when nucleotide bases are added, thus adding information, you think nothing is being added ::)
Anathema Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 Mutations replace. Sometimes with something that is more beneficial then the original gene.
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 you would like to believe that, earthnuker, but where is the evidence? beneficial mutations does not necessitate an addition of information, btw.
Anathema Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 The evidence is the existence of several variants within the same species. This is no proof for macro evolution, I just responded to your statement that mutations interfere with the development of a lifeform.
emprworm Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 And when nucleotide bases are added, thus adding information, you think nothing is being added ::)there is no "thus adding information" and yes, no new information is being added.
Acriku Posted January 16, 2003 Posted January 16, 2003 Emprworm, when a nucleotide base is added, information is added.Take this DNA Strand - (in the middle, no "starter" codon is here)TAG GCG GGG CTT ACTNow when you add a nucleotide in it, you will get this:TAA GGC GGG GCT TAC T Thus, adding the nucleotide (gene can be defined as a nucleotide, and information is in that gene) causes it all to go wrong, and thus a mutation. I am beginning to doubt you took a biology class...
Recommended Posts