Cousin Marriage Bans?

[DrDNA]

Lance.

Re:

Guys

Let me repeat my earlier point. Cousin marriage results in defects in children at a rate no higher than older women (40 plus) having children.

 

 

Care to speculate or even guess why humans are different than canines (see below) or other species?

Maybe I missed it, but I did not see it.

Interesting, but counter intuitive and counter to logic; to me at least.

 

iNow:

Re:

Did nobody else notice how the data DrDna shared in support of his position did not actually support it? What an unecessary and irrelevant tangent this has become.

I guess perhaps I am the only one.

 

Oh Dear Lord....minute details, details, details........

I was responding to the question posed by typ:

Is there any evidence that highlanders (the preferred term) have more first-cousin marriages than the rest of the US?

 

OK.

I concede that I technically should have indicated that I was citing data which supports the assumption that inbreeding did occur (eg, had not have) at a higher rate than the general population.

It still supports the assumptions (or urban/rural legend if you want to call it that) about inbreeding in Appalachia.

It was an oversight on my part which I anticipate I will do again, so be ready for it.

 

.......I'm simply saying that I was mistaken to assume that he was saying that one movie was a valid reflection of society and other movies are not.

Hmmm....I had to think about that one.

Actually, I do believe that Deliverance and Tom Sawyer were more valid reflections on society or a least a portion of society, than the X-Files.

For example, inbred hillbillies, risk taking city slickers, hunters, banjo players, murderers, rapists and sodomizers have been proven to exist.

Conversely, except for an assumption that there are covert government agents that are looking for odd/strange/weird happenings, which is probably valid, I guess, the primary focus of the X-files', and most of its' plots, were centered around space aliens interfering with human activities and other unproven phenomena.

 

Back to the OP-cited data

"Thus, the usual risk estimates are misleading: data from the English West Midlands suggest that British Pakistanis account for only ~4.1% of births, but about 33% of the autosomal recessive metabolic errors recorded at birth [24]. However, for a variety of reasons (including fear that a cousin marriage would result in their being blamed for any birth defects), UK Pakistanis are less likely to use prenatal testing and to terminate pregnancies [20,25]. Thus the population attributable risk of genetic diseases at birth due to inbreeding may be skewed by prenatal elimination of affected fetuses in non-inbred populations. Moreover, the consequences of prolonged inbreeding are not always obvious. The uniting of deleterious recessives by inbreeding may also lead to these alleles being purged from the population. The frequency of such deleterious alleles, then, may be decreased, which (as shown above) means the relative risk is greater, even as the absolute risk decreases."

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320&ct=1

".....account for only ~4.1% of births, but about 33% of the autosomal recessive metabolic errors recorded at birth..."???

33% is an awfully large number.

 

 

Note the following:

"......may be skewed by prenatal elimination of affected fetuses in non-inbred populations ..." (by how much Mr Author?)

"...risk estimates are misleading..." (again, by how much Mr Author?)

 

This smells like bunk and I believe that it is entirely possible that the author has some sort of an agenda.

 

Am I the only 'recent' poster to this thread that can see the rather broad leap in the author's assumptions?

After a few beers, I'd probably accuse him of marrying his own cousin.

 

Fact: The vast majority of genetic diseases (in canines at least) are recessive and the result of relatively small founder populations and excessive inbreeding.

For example, "The large number of reported diseases is due to the founder effect and inbreeding practices in pure-bred dogs that uncover recessive disease alleles. Through aggressive breeding programs man has created over 400 different breeds of dog and burdened them with over 400 inherited diseases during the last 400 years. This places dogs as the species with the second largest number of known genetic diseases, surpassed only by humans."

http://www.koirangeenit.fi/index.php?Itemid=44&id=32&option=com_content&task=view

 

Fact: There was a dramatic increase in Hemophilia, an X-linked recessive disorder, that resulted from inbreeding in both the Russian and British Royal families (as mention elsewhere).

http://www.sciencecases.org/hemo/hemo.asp

 

Then, there is prince Charles ;-)

 

Conclusion = The evidence is overwhelming; there are valid and sufficient reasons for society to shun the act of first cousin marriage.

However, as a social libertarian at heart, I find it hard to accept any *legislation that would make it a punishable crime or legislation that would ban such marriages in much the same manner that I do not care if same sex male-male partners marry; even though the prevalence of aids is much higher in the male homosexual population.

I might, however, be in favor of legal sanctions that would punish the act of generating offspring in cousin-cousin marriages.

For example, it is a crime in many locals to knowingly transmit the aids virus. I believe that this and similar legislation is constitutionally sound and that it is a valid response to this heinous crime

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged Edited January 14, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive post/s merged.

[Pangloss]

Well yes, movies can reflect society, they just don't constitute valid evidence. That was a poor choice of words on my part. I can't seem to catch a break from my own errors in this thread.

[SkepticLance]

DrDNA asked :

 

"Care to speculate or even guess why humans are different than canines (see below) or other species?"

 

Since I am given permission to speculate .....

There are lots of differences between humans and dogs, in terms of reproductive genetics.

For example : A woman has a long reproductive life - about 40 years, whereas a dogs entire life (in the wild) including reproduction is less than 12 years.

 

Inbreeding in dogs, of course, is the result of deliberate breeding tactics. Inbreeding can be extreme. First cousin marriage in humans, assuming it happens only once, is a relatively mild example of inbreeding.

 

Of course first cousin marriage increases the odds of defective children, but only to a minor degree, and the comparison with mothers over 40 is simply to put the odds into perspective.

 

If an increase in risk is small enough, it is silly to let that influence government policy.

[tvp45]

DrDNA asked :

 

"Care to speculate or even guess why humans are different than canines (see below) or other species?"

 

Since I am given permission to speculate .....

There are lots of differences between humans and dogs, in terms of reproductive genetics.

For example : A woman has a long reproductive life - about 40 years, whereas a dogs entire life (in the wild) including reproduction is less than 12 years.

 

Inbreeding in dogs, of course, is the result of deliberate breeding tactics. Inbreeding can be extreme. First cousin marriage in humans, assuming it happens only once, is a relatively mild example of inbreeding.

 

Of course first cousin marriage increases the odds of defective children, but only to a minor degree, and the comparison with mothers over 40 is simply to put the odds into perspective.

 

If an increase in risk is small enough, it is silly to let that influence government policy.

 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should point out that my great grandparents were first cousins (of the second kind, i.e. brother-sister rather than brother-brother or sister-sister; some differentiate on this basis). I believe I have known all of their approximately 150 descendants. There are three who have mild cognitive deficiencies and one who has a moderate congenital defect; all four instances can also be associated with possible environmental causes. However, it is significant that three descendants have stood for public office; that rate of 2% is quite likely a very good reason to ban cousin marriages.

 

On a more serious note, I wish to respond to DrDNA's citation, but don't want to hijack this thread. Moderators, should I start a new thread?

[iNow]

On a more serious note, I wish to respond to DrDNA's citation, but don't want to hijack this thread. Moderators, should I start a new thread?

 

I'm not a mod, but I'd prefer you do it here, in the context of the discussion. I don't think it's a big deal since this thread has minimal traction, and I'd be curious to read your response... Pangloss may know better than I.

 

 

Also, Pangloss - Sorry. It wasn't really my intention to roast you, nor to avoid cutting you slack above. I meant it more as a reinforcement of my position, not to put you on the spot, but I can see my word choice completely failed in that, so mea maxima culpa.

[tvp45]

I'm not a mod, but I'd prefer you do it here, in the context of the discussion. I don't think it's a big deal since this thread has minimal traction, and I'd be curious to read your response... Pangloss may know better than I.

 

 

Also, Pangloss - Sorry. It wasn't really my intention to roast you, nor to avoid cutting you slack above. I meant it more as a reinforcement of my position, not to put you on the spot, but I can see my word choice completely failed in that, so mea maxima culpa.

 

OK. You seem to be enough of an old-timer to know what's acceptable.

 

I don't know the rate of inbreeding in the southern highlands as compared to the rest of the US. I don't know the correct way to characterize that rate (horse and cattle breeders usually use a system that gives them something like a "closeness coefficient"; I can't find a reference to that just now and I don't know if it's even valid) I don't know the effect of that inbreeding rate on either cognitive or physical deficiencies.

 

But, I know a bad source when I see one, and the Cecil Adams link is pure hypothetical insinuation. There are individual problems, such as:

1. He quotes Weyl and Tincher without giving specific references that are easy to check.

2. Weyl's numbers from the Armed Forces Test has no support. At the least, we'd expect to see when it was given, the kinds of things it tested for, and some statistical analysis of the data. We'd also want to see if the data was corrected for factors such as educational level, age, etc.

3. Tincher (I actually know the source, no thanks to Adams) used isonyms to check for cousin relationships. In other words, if the groom and bride had the same last name, Tincher counted that. I research personal property tax records from the 1800 period and frequently find six or seven people in a small county with the same first and last name, and yet not related (perhaps third or fourth cousins back in the old country?) Isonyms might be meaningful, they might not. Without a calibration against an actual kinship check, it's only a guess. Moreover, Tincher used some kind of algorithm to come up with an "average kinship"; I don't know that algorithm and I don't know its validity.

 

But, the fatal blow to the Adams source is that it uses what is commonly understood to be faulty logic. He states that people from certain parts of Appalachia have the lowest scores on the Armed Forces Test. He then states that certain parts (the same parts?) of Appalachia have a higher than normal cousin marriage rate. From this, he concludes that cousin marriages lead to stupidity. This is commonly called "the mashed potatoes proof" ever since someone (probably tongue in cheek) did a "proof" perhaps thirty years ago showing that most mass murderers had eaten mashed potatoes at some time prior to their crimes. Thus, mashed potatoes lead to mass murder.

 

So, I ask again, is there any evidence that the southern highlands, in general, have a higher than average cousin marriage rate? And, no, don't quote the Elvis movie, Kissing Cousins.

[DrDNA]

BTW: I found Tichner's actual conclusion (I assume that it is the actual conclusion).

Interestingly enough in http://blogs.scienceforums.net/evoanthro/2008/04/10/so-there-were-not-all-inbreds/):

 

" Compared with those that have been reported for populations elsewhere,

or at earlier periods in American history, Appalachian inbreeding values

do not seem extreme enough to justify labeling intermarriage as something

unique or particularly common to the region. Evidence from at least four

Appalachian localities—-”Beech Creek,” “Little Smoky Ridge,” “Bullhead

Creek,” and Old Morgan County—suggests that consanguineous marriage has

been common only among certain kin-groups, and hardly as widespread as popular depletions of the region have maintained. [...]

 

In parting, it is interesting to consider how the mainstream has used

Inbreeding in their image of Appalachia. Ideas about intermarriage first

appeared around the same time that unionization of the coal industry and

large-scale outmigration from the region were beginning to occur. The public,

through newspaper stories and face-to-face confrontation, was making the

upsetting discovery of an Appalachia that did not jibe with their earlier

romantic preconceptions. Had it figured in earlier portrayals, inbreeding

in Appalachia would no doubt have been ascribed the beneficial effect of

maintaining its inhabitants’ pure Anglo-Saxon ethnicity- Instead, it has

been used to ridicule and downgrade mountain people, and to emphasize and

account for the differences perceived between them and other Americans."

[iNow]

Actual URL for data in post above = http://blogs.scienceforums.net/evoanthro/2008/04/10/so-there-were-not-all-inbreds/

 

 

Data pulled from:

http://www.anthrosource.net.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/doi/abs/10.1525/cia.1980.2.1.27?prevSearch=Appalachia

 

 

It's also worth noting that tvp45 has asked some very specific and scientific questions which have been completely ignored.

[DrDNA]

Actual URL for data in post above = http://blogs.scienceforums.net/evoanthro/2008/04/10/so-there-were-not-all-inbreds/

Thanks. I screwed that up.

 

Data pulled from:

http://www.anthrosource.net.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/doi/abs/10.1525/cia.1980.2.1.27?prevSearch=Appalachia

Yeah.

I tried that earlier.

It goes to the U of Tenn lib and requires a login/password.

 

It's also worth noting that tvp45 has asked some very specific and scientific questions which have been completely ignored.

Yes. They are excellent questions and comments.

Are you going to answer/respond to them?

If I had the answers, I certainly would.