this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
778 points (98.0% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5746 readers
1125 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Though I think it was already known that the union between close relatives has the tendency to create sickly offspring.
Close relatives, yes, but not so much with cousins. And it wasn't until Darwin that they truly started to grasp what was going on.
It's easy to spot the recurring issue of diseased/sickly/malformed offspring with incest between siblings, or between parents and children, because the rate of birth defects is much higher. Fourfold, in fact.
Cousins didn't produce them nearly as much, so it wasn't an obvious enough trend. It's perfectly possible for first cousins to have healthy offspring more than half the time. In fact some studies have found the risk of genetic defeats is not much higher than a regular couple where the women is over the age of 40. Which is to say, it's low, but not low enough to ignore. There's also a lot of other factors involved especially when it comes to closed ethnic groups that tend to only reproduce amongst themselves.
see habsburgs