Quote from: Marlin Clock;1857841Well even most animals have incest prevention behaviors so Idno if we can really say that's a behavior based on social development.

No they don't. I've seen dogs breed with their own sisters. Anyway, lacking a culture, it wouldn't be a taboo, it'd just be a thing they don't do.

Quote from: F U Clock;1857874Incest-taboo may have some social relation but I think a lot of it's just natural selection. Much more beneficial to the species if we vary our gene pool as much as possible. I assume a lack of disgust-instinct towards incest died off from unfavorable genetic homogeny and hereditary disease.

Actually, it would take several generations of inbreeding for the genetic mutation risk to become noticeable. It's almost certain that pre-scientific cultures wouldn't be able to make the connection, especially when there is already a readily visible and much more compelling reason to have an incest taboo. I'd say that the association of incest with deformity is actually a product of the taboo rather than a reason for it (and my anthropology professor backs me on that, for the nothing at all that that's worth).

You have to remember, culture doesn't evolve in quite the same way species do. Adaptive traits develop, but through communication and learning, not through natural selection. Of course that doesn't mean that cultures with really stupid ideas (or just maladaptive ones) won't die out, just that the ones that stick around don't develop their cultures in the way they do purely due to genetics.

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

i.e. we're probably descendants of a bunch of cousin fuckers

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1857902No they don't. I've seen dogs breed with their own sisters. Anyway, lacking a culture, it wouldn't be a taboo, it'd just be a thing they don't do.



 
Actually, it would take several generations of inbreeding for the genetic mutation risk to become noticeable. It's almost certain that pre-scientific cultures wouldn't be able to make the connection, especially when there is already a readily visible and much more compelling reason to have an incest taboo. I'd say that the association of incest with deformity is actually a product of the taboo rather than a reason for it (and my anthropology professor backs me on that, for the nothing at all that that's worth).

You have to remember, culture doesn't evolve in quite the same way species do. Adaptive traits develop, but through communication and learning, not through natural selection. Of course that doesn't mean that cultures with really stupid ideas (or just maladaptive ones) won't die out, just that the ones that stick around don't develop their cultures in the way they do purely due to genetics.

Well it's definitely an interesting point, because I'll confess that though I believe evolution pushes species to be as genetically diverse as possible (in fact, isn't that sort of a tenant of evolution? So that no one catastrophe can wipe out all life?) I also know that in our psychology of motivation class I learned that humans tend to mate with people who have more genetic similarities than the average two people pulled off of the street. So those are kind of conflicting ideas I don't quite know how to parse.

Of course, the data could be read backwards, in that society influences who we mate with more than instinct. So we tend to mate with people of the same race because it's more expected. Also we mate with the most attractive mate we can find, so people tend to mate with similar levels of attractiveness - therefore similar genes for features which are considered attractive (large eyes, high cheekbones, etc.) tend to match well with one another.

So how's that for derailing the topic!?

Quote from: AlbinoClock;1857902No they don't. I've seen dogs breed with their own sisters. Anyway, lacking a culture, it wouldn't be a taboo, it'd just be a thing they don't do.

I would like to note that dogs have been taken out of the natural selection process for thousands of years now; and that I said many, not all.
 

Quote from: Sombra;1857946http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

i.e. we're probably descendants of a bunch of cousin fuckers

Well by the time you get to 2nd cousins the risk of genetic diseases is almost the same as random mating so cousin mating really isn't that big of a problem genetics-wise.

Quote from: F U Clock;1857975Well it's definitely an interesting point, because I'll confess that though I believe evolution pushes species to be as genetically diverse as possible (in fact, isn't that sort of a tenant of evolution? So that no one catastrophe can wipe out all life?) I also know that in our psychology of motivation class I learned that humans tend to mate with people who have more genetic similarities than the average two people pulled off of the street. So those are kind of conflicting ideas I don't quite know how to parse.

Of course, the data could be read backwards, in that society influences who we mate with more than instinct. So we tend to mate with people of the same race because it's more expected. Also we mate with the most attractive mate we can find, so people tend to mate with similar levels of attractiveness - therefore similar genes for features which are considered attractive (large eyes, high cheekbones, etc.) tend to match well with one another.

Evolution should drive homogeneity, with mutation being the driving factor of diversity. Since evolution is merely defined by changes in allele ratios in a population you could argue either way but in a natural selection sense you usually have one trait favored over other and thus becoming fixed or at least dominant. There are certain genes that are highly conserved simply because they are required for functional bodies. Usually the most varying traits are simply resource acquisition traits and sexually selected traits.

QuoteSo how's that for derailing the topic!?

I find evolutionary behavior theories far more fascinating anyway.

It's natural for debates to flow in different directions when discussing complex ideas like morality... I don't think there's anything wrong with it as long as it can relate to the original topic. Since genetics and human evolution definitely play a part in morality (I think the original claim was that genetics may play a large part in human altruism), it still contributes to the topic.

I'm good with this turn of events, it's directly related so it's all good.

Carry on.