Darwinism? There is no such thing as Darwinism. There is biological science. If you are refering to the mtDNA Eve and the Y-Adam constructs, no, you are wrong.
mtDNA Eve is not connected to Y Adam. They are, ultimately deceptive, construct labels, not a literal Adam and Eve. Nothing in the evidence would even suggest they are. Indeed quite the contrary the Y and mtDNA lineages are not contemporaneous, and reflect differential histories.
The investigators who slapped these labels on the data deserve to be smacked for it, given the amount of misunderstanding generated.
Of course, Mitchondrial Eve had two parents, just like the rest of us, and so one could say that everyone is decended from that couple. Likewise all of MtEve’s ancestors. Likewise Y-guy and all of his ancestors. And presumably also likewise a multitude of other folks who just happened to be ancestor to all modern humans, through a mixed-gender line.
As for consanguinuity: Assuming no inbreeding, siblings have an average of 50% consanguinuity, but can (theoretically) range from 0% to 100%. A parent and offspring have 50%. Grandparents are 1/4, great-grands are 1/8, great[sup]2[/sup]-grandparents are 1/16, great[sup]n[/sup]-grandparents are 1/2sup[/sup] consanguinous.
Aunt/uncle and niece/nephew are 1/4, first cousins are 1/8, first cousins once removed are 1/16, second cousins are 1/32, ith cousins j times removed are 1/2[sup](2i + j + 1)[/sup] consanguinous.
Half-siblings are 1/4 consanguinous. Identical twins are 100% consanguinous. Half-identical twins (egg splits, then both are fertilized by sperm from the same man) are 3/4 consanguinous. In the extreme example posted by Sofa King, the man and the first daughter are 1/2 consanguinous, the man and the (grand)daughter are 3/4 consanguinous, and the man and the ((great)grand)daughter are 7/8 consanguinous, so the ((great)grand)daughter probably would be worse off, genetically, than the (grand)daughter, as would every subsequent (generation), if it continued.
Lamia, there was the first European King & queen, they had children, those children had children & on & on & basically that’s what I was referring to. I actually read that somewhere, but haven’t been able to remember what K&Q they were.
bernse probably wants to be more careful in the future as making up facts as examples (which the post makes clear) since they are ripe for being accepted as fact by those who don’t read very carefully. Sorry we don’t have facts like that to give you. handy is probably being confused either by some Christian idea about the population of Europe by the survivors of the Great Flood or by ideas about Charlemagne being the person to whom most nobility in Europe made strong efforts to find a connection.
A report came out within about a year that did a study on children of fist cousins that showed the absolute increase in risk of problems was exceedingly low (like lotto low). I’ll try to find it.
Also, why woul one think there had to be a single couple from which we’ve descended? As you go back you have more ancesters, not fewer. Eventually they start overlapping more and more with the ancestors of other contemporaneous folk, but it seems a lot like the chicken and egg idea. Correct me where I’m wrong, but AFAIK there’s no reason to think humans didn’t evolve by combination of traits from different populations/tribes.
Was there an “Adam & Eve” of rats or chicadees or galapagos finches? (I suppose there may have been a polygamous Adams & Eves in the galapagos. :))
Issue from close-order relationships (even father-daughter, mother-son, or brother-sister) is not ipso facto genetically inferior.
According to the legal encyclopedia *Corpis Juris Secundum, * only Illinois and Pennsylvania make first-cousin relationships illegal. Elsewhere, sibling, parent-child (and any ancestor-any descendant), aunt-nephew, and uncle-niece relationships are incestuous and prohibited by law.
Although most states (and perhaps foreign jurisdictions–Canada?) permit first-cousin relationships, the problem is what to do if the relationship goes sour, since the person is still your first cousin and will remain so as long as both of you are still living. You can’t get away from blood relationships like you can from a relationship with a non-relative.
Although genetic defects are not as much a danger as commonly believed, the emotional relationship between two people too closely related to marry–especially a parent and a child or two siblings–will suffer serious damage from incest even without pregnancy or physical trauma.
I’ve never heard of any research on my statement before. I don’t keep up with biology the way I keep up with technology.
It’s a fairly simple thought experiment, it just takes a good deal of time.
Make a family tree in your head of everyone alive a couple thousand years ago. For ease of use, let’s make it precisely 4000 years ago. You can trace the tree down to the indiviudal person, or down to families, or villages.
Keep going back. Every child that died before breeding has a red X. Most of the tree is red, but the ones that survive branch back and forth, often mingling with those genetically close.
Go back and you’ll find that a dozen couples produced everyone alive today. Keep going back a thousand generations and those eventually go back to a single couple.
Everyone else that could have made babies is dead.
Go to the couple’s parents, and most of their children are dead. NOTE! Not all of them. They might have even had children, and again, but they do not join the tree that leads to humans. Those lines died.
If you say “Hey! What if the ones you call “dead” coupled with someone in the tree?” I say then the couple currently considered the top of the tree is not it. Then the last one was - their parents.
The Adam and Eve story is remarkably repititious - it’s found in many, many stories of the beginning of the world.
Oh wonderful, you are just pulling an assertion out of your ass.
Your thought experiment is of marginal interest, as it does indicate the process by which lines die out, however, differential mating patterns - which are reflected in the different demographic histories female and male lines often reflected in the genetic data skew this. Data.
Leaving aside the banality of the assertion (and its questionable accuracy as such, that says nothing at all except in regards to a likely commonalities across humanity in mythologizing origins arising from common mental heuristics.