Do u think we had to be incestuous to propagate the species?

Question

I think as cavemen people would have had to be incestuous at some point in evolution,strength in numbers, do you think that its part of our genetic programming or just a matter of neccessity. Is this why why its still exists in todays society?

Answer 1

If you want an anthropological answer, then first of all you need to understand the Prohibition of Incest (rule of incest for short).

The rule of Incest is a universal rule that underlies human culture, everywhere and in any time. So in any stage of hominid development, if you can call them "human" then the rule of incest is present.

Ronin for instance, does not know that for an anthropologist the rule of incest prohibits sexual access to designated categories. Just that. Who is forbidden and who is allowed depends on the specific culture. Still, there is always someone that is not allowed, thus the rule is always present.

There was never a genetic programming involved, not to favor incest not to avoid it. Dogs will mate with their offspring if kept together. Instinct if you like, might push the dog to mate, but it says nothing of who to mate with. Humans have chosen to exclude some from mating. That is a cultural step, unrelated to genetic programming.

Why does it happen nowadays? Because it is a cultural rule, and all cultural rules can be broken, even those that control bodily needs or wants.

Answer 2

all races are the result of breeding in traits. isolation of tribes then caused what is now called incestuous sexual behaviour. females and male siblings maybe from one mother but different fathers who were brothers  at prime sexual responce time would have s*x because it is feels good , they did not for quite sometime equate s*x with babies, as didn't the australian aboriginals who thought women walked past some spirit   incestuous behaviour occurs still  in the middle east were cousins marry cousins.

Answer 3

Well, the reverse is more often stated. The taboo of Incest was created in order for the human race to survive and "propagate." You may have a valid point. I really can't help you on that first point. But as far as the reasons for its existence in today's society (our society? I assume): I don't believe that incest in our society has anything to do with "caveman" instincts. I have no compassion for men and women who sexually abuse children. However, I know and studied different cultures who practice incestuous rituals. As an example, some culture considers and practices a ritual where the father will have (or pretend to have) some kind of sexual intercourse with his son. The ritual is a rite of passage. In these cultures, boys must go through it in order to become men. Viewed in this light, incest is no longer an abnormal and deviant act but a culturally recognized and accepted life transition. Therefore, the boys or girls grow up to be completely healthy and empowered by the "incest." What make incest in our society so devastating are the secret and shame that accompany it. The fact that all predators make huge effort to keep their acts "secret" answers the question of whether or not instinct comes in play here. Not, only a deviance that traumatizes.

Answer 4

well...there were "Cavemen" if thats what you want to call it from all over different areas. And once the different groups began to move and migrate around. They would breed with other groups. (I dont know specific names). But starting out. When the population of the world was really really small. Im sure there was some incest. I don't think it's in our genetic programming. At least not anymore. Incest is looked down upon universally. If there was ever any genetic programming, it had to be a long time ago..and its not there anymore.

I think incest is in our society today because there are some sickos out there, who just aren't right in the head. If you look at every country, tribe, town, village all around the world incest is not something that is approved of.

Answer 5

Well, as for the first part of your question that's easy. Human physical attraction is based off visual cues that aren't terribly good at distinguishing relatives from non-relatives. Your body will recognize and respond to a relative as a member of the opposite s*x, just like it would anyone else. Humans have a great cultural taboo against responding to a relative sexually, one that probably that's probably rooted in instinct as well as cultural development, and in most of us it's strong enough to keep us from ever even contemplating acting on that response. But in some people it isn't.

As to the second part. Genetic research indicates that there were several major genetic bottlenecks in human history. There was a volcanic eruption in the ice age that's thought to have wiped out humanity possibly down to as few as a few thousand individuals. And non-African populations are mostly descended from a tiny trickle of migrants over the Sinai in prehistoric times, with entire populations probably often being descended from a single tribe of maybe a few dozen people. We'd probably consider populations like that inbred by modern standards.

Incest is genetically deletrious because it dramatically increases the odds of the child being a homozygote. That isn't necessarily bad but because most devastating congenital diseases are recessive (they have to be to survive in the gene pool) it sometimes is. Statistically a child of incest will have a significant congenital defect about 1 in every 10 times. This is probably why most animals, including humans, seem to instinctually avoid it. However, the idea that there is necessarily something biologically wrong with it is a brainbug. 1 in 10 children having a congenital defect still means 9 out of 10 are perfectly healthy.

I doubt close consanguinious unions (brother-sister, for instance) were ever considered normal in any human group, although ancient royal families would often do it if they couldn't find a suitable foreign prince or princess to marry one of their children off to.

Distant consanguinious unions (between cousins) are pretty common in primitive cultures. Mostly just as a factor of limited geographical mobility. If you live in a small village of maybe a few dozen people, and the odds are you're going to spend your whole life there, you can't afford to be as scrupulous in avoiding consanguinious unions as us moderns are. Not if you don't want to die a bachelor anyway.

Answer 6

According to the Bible, yes... If not with Adam and Eve's offspring, well you still have Noah's family after the flood!

According to Evolution and observations of the natural world, no.  It seems the genes of all higher animals, including humans, are hardwired to avoid such copulations if possible.  Even within small human populations in the past, their cultures implemented rules of engagement that attempted to avoid this.  The closest relationships that were culturally permitted were typically cross cousins given a small enough tribal size.

So, take your pick...

Bible - perverted

Natural world - avoids this via natural selection

It is actually quite obvious and in case you were doubting my straight forward conclusions I'll be more specific.  If humans are incestuous then there is a higher chance that the foetus that is produced from this type of copulation will result in miscarriage, if born, there is a greater chance of recessive alleles combining to create serious genetic flaws in those offspring.  Natural selection works because it creates successful offspring, not gimped offspring.  If any complex animal had a genetic flaw that caused them to be interested in their own siblings this would quickly be selected against because they would produce less offspring and the ones that were produced would be less successful. Individulas who were genetically normal and prefered matings with distant members from their group, or to go outside their group alltogether would experience the most gene recombinations with very different genes and this has shown to not only reduce recessive allignments that cause genetic flaws, but has also shown to produce much healthier offspring, especially their immune systems.  Simple rule, breed close get messed up kids, many who die before they are even born.  Breed far from your genetic stock and get superior kids who will be immunicologically, physically and mentally stronger.  Obviously, over generations of this equation you can see what we have become genetically hardwired towards!

As for this "neccessity" you speak of, in a historic sense I see very few times when their was ever a neccessity for such behaviors and when a population did become restricted enough either in size or in retaining a status of "royalty" such that they were forced to take courses of action like this, well some outbreaks of the rarest genetic disorders on the planet were as a direct result.  Here is an article that talks about the strange results of culturally manipulated incest (all 4 of his grandparents were parallell cousins and his parents would have been BOTH parallel and cross cousins because they were already so heavily inbred): http://www.channel4.com/history/microsit... As you can see this line of action resulted in his family line and any incestuous tendancies ending with him!  Conclusion, 3 consecutive generations of incestuous reproduction = end of the genetic line!

Answer 7

No I don't think so, I believe we would have propagated ourselves out of existence.

Answer 8

Yes, back in the day and especially in Ancient Rome but to do it today is just plain sick.

Answer 9

Talk for yourself hunnybunch....

Answer 10

it is not so much to increase the population as to ensure family ties. this was the case in ancient egypt where pharaos often married their sisters to keep the bloodline royal. i would suspect similar practices could have ocurred in prehistoric tribes to keep the ruling families in line.

Answer 11

I don't think so.  I read somewhere that little girls don't like their father's smell.  Pheromones (sp?) are supposed to keep us from procreating with our parents, or siblings.  It is like a hard-wire, you don't even know it.

Answer 12

This behavior is not only found in human specie, it is found in many others. While it brings its lots of health problems, it do solve a time problems (a kind of social patchwork), and is mean to be only a temporary solution to increase survival rate among close groups.

A few years ago, a tribe in Yunnan province (China) has been discovered, in this tribe (closed to the outside world), the society was set in a way that baffled the scientific community. The girls never knew their father, they were only raise by their mother, and when in age to procreate, they could choose any man in the tribe, even if she was choosing unknowingly her father, or even half brother... This discovery has change the way of interpreting the presence of incestual behavior and cosanguinity in our specie. This is definitly a phenomenon that arise in somewhat close group or society, in order to increase momentarily the odds of survival of such group.

Answer 13

Well technically if you go back to Adam & Eve there would have to be unless you believe Adam had a wife before Eve then it would be half siblings.

But I don't believe it's part of genetic programming & a matter of neccessity stopped by the 3rd generation.

Science has proven we are automatically drawn to those with similar family features & since people migrated in clans it would follow that there would be intermarriage among cousins to propagate the family name or blood, lack of choices, similarity in backgrounds, etc.

But there is no excuse (let alone reason) for incestuous relationships today. Like rape it's more the power high than the s*x. It's extremely rare (if at all) that both siblings over 18 consent to s*x with each other,if it never happened before. With a parent, uncle, aunt they know the victim is younger & will rarely talk, are threatened if they do & if they do often won't be believed so in a sense they do hold the power over them.

Often the victim will deal with it by fantasizing they wanted it because all children have a point in their life when they dream of being the opposite s*x parent's spouse (though not sexually, just because they love them so much). That may well be why Woody Allen got his adopted child & Mia Farrow's attitude didn't help much. Or they believe the offender it was their fault. Or they are threatened if they tell.

I've talked to victims who still won't tell the family because they feel they won't be believed. Or they were to blame, in part. Plus it doesn't help the situation when some kids will accuse their parent of it because they're mad at them, not because it happened. According to a cop I spoke to that happens a whole lot more than people realize as well. Thus sometimes the true victims will suffer more before anything is done, if ever.

The more powerless a person feels in their own life, the more likely it is to happen, just like the abuser who abuses his own child. It's a forbidden fruit that they are more likely not to get caught partaking in & it gives them more power in their life to do so if it's a family member than a stranger. The offender knows exactly what he's doneor doing, no matter how contrite he acts when caught. Saying they are mentally ill just gives them another excuse. If he was truly sorry it never would've happened, at least not a second or third time.

The only way it would even be half believable was if he was so drunk once he didn't know what he was doing or remember. More than once, alcohol or not, he's only sorry he got caught unless he has had a life transforming experience & sought the victim's forgiveness before getting caught.

Answer 14

Mating with 1st cousins happens all over the world and was in fact the norm in Europe and still is in more "clan" oriented societies.  As for siblings, sure it happened, but at that point there is a much higher risk for offspring.

So the answer is yes, but prob not much sibliing, more cousin.  And some parent/child (surely father/daughter), but not as much.