Well, your explanation would make sense. Because fun fact: Ants are in fact wasps, they originate from the same family. The current scientific consensus goes like this: Long ago, during the time of the dinosaurs, wasps were in fact loners. They were not social creatures living in social hives like today. However, at some point due to the dying of the dinosaurs and reptilians growing ever smaller, they suddenly were faced with much more reptile predators to eat them then ever before. Driving them to near extinction and also desperate measures. It is argued that some wasps for the first time started to gather socially in colonies or hives in desperation, as to ensure their survival. They also started to build the first hive structures and safe buildings for their kind to, once again, protect them from predators wanting to eat them. Add some more million years and evolution to it, and some wasp speciess started to lose their wings and instead focused on crawling and ground structures. That is how ants were created. All of them very long ago, were originaly wasps. You can even see a few of those traits in every ant even today, even if it is only for mating season, ants fly and mate. And a very few like the infamous south american fire ant, can still actually sting, indeed they can this is no joke. Their stings are very painfull too. Most ants however over the course of evolution, have lost their sting, and concentrated their energy more into their legs and especially jaws instead as this was more suitable for the environment they live in and for their own survival. And a very few others, like our famous(since decades under protection too) german red wood ant(well there are different speciess of wood ants here in germany, pretty much all of them are under protection nonetheless), have developed a different mechanism: Instead of having a stinger, they can in fact shoot a slightly venomous acid from their rears. The german red wood ant does that. It is less venemous and more paralyzing to the enemy, paralyzing them, allowing the wood ants to more easily hunt down their prey. This can even slightly be felt as a human too. In the nearby woods where I grew up, if you knew the way you could find 2 wood ant colonies. Getting 1 of them on my finger, it shot its acid at my finger, though very slightly, I could feel some numbness for about 15 minutes where it sprayed my finger. Literally feeling the paralyzing effect of it even if it was very slight. If you can even feel it as a human, you can begin to imagine what effects it would have on other insects which they hunt for food.
unless ants and wasps reproduced in a very different way than they do now it would be virtually impossible for them to reproduce supporting a queen is a herculean feat for ants particularly for an ant to support a queen every day would be like WW2 logistics alone would be a nightmare then add to that defending the colony only a hive mind could execute this
Just curious, is marrying one's cousin really that bad in Western world? I am Indonesian, an Asian, my late maternal grandparents were cousins, and my late father's mother was the sister of my maternal grandmother, which technically my father is my mother's cousin, but I feel healthy and luckily, my sister and I have no genetic abnormality at all.
@@AloysioWisnu my father and mother are 3rd generation cousins both have anger issues and guess what 2 of my siblings got mental health problems sociopathic behavior
@@AloysioWisnu Leads to more abnormalities and defects. There are people in the US that have incestuous relationships but it is generally illegal in the states. But even that is contradictory to what is allowed in the US. Don't got me wrong, I don't want to be with anyone that is so close a blood relative that I can track our ancestry back to a common relative. But the US allows a lot to be legal that is detrimental to health and cause birth defects and yet they hone in on incest.
@@AloysioWisnu A couple of centuries ago, European Christians had to get special permission to marry their first cousins from the church. It was not encouraged. Second or third cousins etc were allowed. However, there are small communities such as the Amish in the USA who regularly marry second cousins etc, and as a result, genetic abnormalities build up. It is common for them not to have ten fingers (i.e. eight true fingers and two thumbs), and some have more fingers than that.
It depents on how far the relative is. See kin selection and other stuff. I heared that some study in primates evaluated that the 3rd cousins are most sutable for breeind, being the best combinantion of diversity as well as relativness. But I will not post a link now, do the Google search yourself. Maybe I am wrong or maybe the paper was wrong, it was years ago...... Man, I feel old. :-( And alone. And lonely. I am not alone, but lonely...
Erik Žiak Perhaps sleeping with a relative will cure your loneliness, that was in bad taste, but I mean generally, it's not the best idea to have intercourse with a blood relative...
It works for some species but they need specific adaptations to make it work. In the case of the insects it works because the males only get 1 set of dna so they're unlikely to survive or mate if they have detrimental genes.
Inbreeding works for insects, because it's about the colony, not the individuals. Most of the "workers" are identical and work to protect the nest and serve the queen. Selfishness is taken out of the equation when everyone is genetically identical, their survival is essentially your survival. Besides, a new queen is born every season and flies away to start a new nest with whom ever she happens to run into.
TripleM I grew up on a farm, and we basically did that. But the sperm came from different farms and it was expensive. For great genes we paid close to a thousand dollars. We were still trying to avoid inbreeding.
Well, it really depends. A child conceived between immediate relations is highly likely to suffer from congenital defects. With cousins, it isn't as bad. The Habsburgs continued to marry their cousins and nieces, however, for several generations and Charles II was as genetically deficient as if his parents were siblings. His family tree was a closed loop.
Well somehow congenital syphilis always manages to be avoided when it comes to him. Even though it definietly played a part. (sadly it decreases the moral value of the story)
Bad? Yes. The populations of people from Pakistan and India who marry cousins generation after generation illustrate this. Those living in the U.K. have ten times the incidence of genetic disorders compared to the normal. They persist in the practice because keeping money in the family is more important to them than the health of their children.
Thank you Paul... Funny how ppl disregard the obvious parts of a whole that define... the whole! Things of this nature, like this video are almost a desensitization tool. There will be these ppl like "well i didn't start it" "is it really that bad"... Use loose metrics to override logic!
izzat al aqidat , you can hate someone because their parents are too closely related, or even because they might be? If you meet someone and get on well with them, and then you discover their parents are first cousins, what happens? Do you suddenly start hating them?
Paul Langford it's not all. Only a few set of people. And it's not for keeping money. They do it only because it's not a taboo and a part of their culture.
“Wasp have simple genetics” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember seeing somewhere that wasps have around 19-38 pairs of chromosomes, depending on species. Humans have 23 pairs. I bet there are some wasps with a more complex genome than us. That doesn’t really matter, of course, since nature is more about “who is more adapted” than “who is more complex”. Of course you shouldn’t breed with your relatives, but that has more to do with the niche that us humans fill.
Eh. Lots of people have an incest fetish of one sort or another. It's interesting to me how little knowledge a lot of people have of the range of human sexual diversity and so anything out of the "mainstream" is automatically judged as gross or wrong.
I think an "incest fetish" is potentially different than having actual sexual attraction to a relative. That would be why it is specified. A person's porn hub preferences do not cause genetic damage that could last generations. I can not usually speak on what people do online because it is just usually not important but having a sexual attraction to a relative is disgusting mostly because of the potential for damage.
Lots of things are damaging...calling something disgusting is a judgement. Fetish is different than relationship, but you can find support groups and forums for incest relationships online as well. It's not as uncommon as people seem to think. And people can do genetic counseling if they want to have children, the same as any couple. People seem to think that any inbreeding at all leads to horrible birth defects on the first generation. This just isn't true. It actually just increases probabilities of certain disorders but you will still more likely than not have a healthy baby if it's just one generation. You can end up with the same disorder anyway if you happen to hook up with someone with the same recessive trait. Anyway I'm not recommending it or anything, but I think the judgement is unnecessary. If people are happy I think we should accept it. At the very least being able to get genetic counseling without fear of legal consequences would improve health outcomes. To me the worst part of it would actually be the social consequences to your child given the stigma. So I think we should reduce the stigma. People are going to do it anyway, stigma doesn't get rid of it, it just makes it worse for people who do it. I don't see how there is any benefit to judging something like this.
My maternal grandmother and grandfather were cousins, and my father, is actually the son of my maternal grandmother's sister, which make my father is the cousin of my mother 😂 Luckily, I'm just fine, and I have no interest to marry my cousin 😂
Lieutenant Prick Inbreeding is why most white folk know their dad because he is grandad/papa at the same damn time. Brother/daddy, Uncle/daddy stepdaddy/dad, etc.
so what you're saying is that my cousin is off limits? *Update: I decided not to date my cousin after close examination of sarcastic RU-vid comments. Pardon my translation English is not my first language.
For the future, when referencing information gained from research, can we have more than 'a scientist said?' Being specific in the type of science being referenced (entomology, gene research, etc,.) aids in the promotion of scientific literacy.
Warren L The analogy is what's wrong. Unless incest is going on, a Chinese or German couple are not close enough in genetic relations that the gene pool is weakened by a lack of variation. With roughly 150 million people of German ancestry, and no consciously imposed restriction on who they can mate with, (except for that brief period in the 1930s-1940s when humanity's greatest evil involved such a restriction), there is no comparison between human ethnicities and purebred dog breeds. Across almost every civilised culture, there is some sort of a taboo against incest, and that is understandable. It can limit the gene pool and do harm to it. But most people don't seem to have a problem with forcing dogs to practice incest, despite the fact it's had such a detrimental affect that English Bulldogs for example, have to be artificially inseminated and undergo caesarean section in order to reproduce. That right there, the inability of English Bulldogs, one of "man's best inventions," to mate and reproduce without assistance, is testament to how fucked up incest (aka purebreeding) is, forced or otherwise.
im a dog breeder who has studied at university around america. inbreeding to create dog breeds in the short term create no real noticeable problems. but the more inbreeding occurs, recessive genes that never existed before in either sire nor dam begin appearing. so yes, for ALL mammals, inbreeding is bad all the time.
When I bought my cat I got a history of her parents, grandparents etc and that info is in a chip she got under her skin. That way if I want to bread her I can see if the potential partner is closely related. Guess they do the same with dogs. By the way I have a Cornish rex and they got "created" from a mother and son. So technically they all are inbred.
They don't. To get that reasonably healthy dog, they probably had many many more unhealthy or dead dogs. Color variants are the same problem, like in Harlequin Great Danes. This happens to thoroughbred horses a lot too, to the point that there was one sire decades ago that passed down a disease called HYPP to now thousands of descendants. Health and fitness, not to mention overpopulation, is a distant concern for the vast majority of breeders or cats, dogs, and horses, to the detriment and tragedy of many animals who are euthanized or slaughtered.
Thank you for pointing out the differences between issues with populations and issues with individuals. This is maybe the place where the biggest misunderstandings in Evolution occur.
Humans are bad at determining what qualifies as excessive, so just avoiding inbreeding altogether is a much easier rule to follow than the optimal, but much more complicated rule of avoiding _excessive_ inbreeding.
In humans even slight inbreeding already causes problems in most cases. Ever more so and more likely the more the incest continues. Different creatures have different genetic makeup. We humans are definitely not a speciess that can safely inbreed at all.
+TheFreeFlow Well not in "most" cases, but in enough cases to be selected against. Sibling mating is not immediately dangerous _most_ of the time, but it is more likely to be problematic than mating with people who are barely related, and an inherited preference for inbreeding may cause inbreeding over many generations, which is much more problematic. Also note that relationship is relative. Sibling mating is riskier than mating with a first cousin, for instance, and mating with a second cousin carries negligible risk. Note that everyone is related to some extent, so it is all a matter of degree.
EebstertheGreat Exactly. It is much easier to make up a slightly over-cautious rule that can safely be followed for generations than to try and work out when something is safe and when it's not.
@@EebstertheGreat Look up the genetic history on King Tut. Breeding sister and brothers and parents with kids pretty much doomed King Tut to a short miserable life of painful disease.
Biology seems to have a lot invested in the "no hanky panky with the family" plan. Our bodies even have early detectors of DNA too close to its line. Its not just social taboo that gives you the "eww" response about kissing your sibling. which itself is a way to verify someones DNA.
Yeah thats all there is to it, its not that mysterious or magical. So there is one more reason to oppose gene research and gene modification. It sooner or later leads to hank-panky between relatives becoming legal
Me: *reads title* "is inbreeding really that bad?" Also me: "idk ask Charles (the II) Habsburg if it was bad... oh wait you couldn't understand him even if you could've asked him.."
The Romanov's were a great example of both the benefits and the down sides. Humans should really not inbreed, since it tends to greatly effect our intelligence. Also it causes mayor mental problems.
> Maybe Habsburgs, Romanovs couldn't inbreed... Well, the Romanovs could have, they just didn't. The Habsburgs didn't have to, but they did. The Ptolemy family did, once the Macedonians general got Egypt he married a Pharoah's daughter and then they adopted the same inbreeding strategy as was typical in Egyptian royal families, and it seemed to work for the few centuries that they used it. Likewise, Hawaiian noble families did that, to no great harm (because the ones that it DID harm were allowed to die). If the bad crosses are ruthlessly eliminated, it can work. If not, it can fail catastrophically. Read some Heinlein about the Howard Families (esp., Methuselah's Children) for a fuller explanation.
What people seem to forget is that unless you essentially practice eugenics, you're pretty much guaranteed to pass an unwanted trait onto your child. While mating with relatives increase the likelihood of inheriting an unwanted trait, you can still end up with that trait if both people have it in the first place. So unless you're willing to go through extensive testing and flat out refuse to procreate with your partner if you both share an unwanted trait, you're not really any better than someone who is inbreeding.
👏🏆👏 *levitates, charges the air and does hydrokinesis* 🐱🏍honestly its just an irrational taboo, same as the irrational fear of practicing eugenics. would trade my nervousystem for anything, even in its beaten up state.
Actually, all of the genetic disorders linked to inbreeding are caused by a large number of different genes, all of which are recessive. So you have to get the recessive gene from both parents on a LOT of different genes before you end up with these disorders. Because of this, the average, fully-healthy couple who are completely unrelated to each other have odds in the one in millions range, when it comes to having children with these disorders; supposing no anomalies occur. So even if breeding with your own sibling doubled your odds (it doesn't...not by a long shot), this would raise the odds to...two in millions. So, a single case of incest, even at the closest-relation-possible level, really doesn't make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. What causes a family tendency toward genetic disorders is when you inbreed generation after generation until your geneological chart starts to look less like a family tree, and more like a family pole. Just some food for thought. :P
DarkEternal6 to be fair Izanami and Izanagi are called siblings because they were born at the same time. Not from the same parents. Also you forgot the most famous incest creation myth. The Greek one. Gaia fucks her own son Ouranus
I got my grandparents to take an ancestrt dna test and it came up that they were 3rd/4th cousins lol. They didn't know but both came from a tiny village so what do you expect...
Currently, you can use 23andme (or even export data from ancestrydna) to check what SNP's (that the chip looks for) that you and someone else share. My sister and I share about 46%, but a very-distant cousin (our common relative is a great-great-great grandparent) only share 1.2%. You could then in theory check if anything known in those SNP's are terrible and recessive, eg by looking it up on Promethease. That said, if checking DNA ever becomes a thing, we might see some of the bad things from GATTACA come true (genetic discrimination.)
anybody who has been to college and had the pleasure of sitting though genetics course will tell you how low the chances of inheriting those disease is.
I have one of those diseases. The odds of inheriting it are 1:3500. I am a zebra. Got dxd with it at 59 yrs old. Made it this long by not smoking or drinking otherwise I most likely would be dead by now.
I grew up in Georgia and fondly remember going to family reunions to meet girls. BUT, inbreeding is bad. The reason they have such a hard time solving crimes is that there ain't no dental records, and we all share the same DNA.
Yeah but she forgot his entire prelude up to that last quote!!!! Life finds a way, but it's a violent mess that cannot be contained. Anyways, that last bit? Yeah. Humans are like the planet's mammalian monocrop species. The genetic diversity we're wiping out because we consume too many resources + pollute in a way that's ultimately like self destruction is baffling. I prefer quality life over quantity. We really don't need more humans. It's like when an idiot overstocks a fish tank creating toxic water for the inhabitants. That's just cruel. Less is more.
Try to sell it at work as a way to promote the show. Don't know your show's demographic, but kid's science day at science museums might be the best venue to try.
I'm a liberal from California, and I find it ironic/humorous that Kentucky bans marriage between first-cousins, but my state doesn't. Although, Kentucky is only one of six states that ban the practice. Really flips the stereotype, doesn't it?
Mutations can occur spontaneously. So there are no gurantees any child will be "perfectly" genetically healthy. Even an outcrossed neonate can be born with a new spontaneous mutation.
Recessive genes become predominant in the off spring of those who in breed. It's a fact ( go on NHS website) in the UK the Bangladeshi community marry their first cousins and the consequences to the health of their children is vast. A young Bangladeshi girl born from such a union was interviewed who had a terrible skin complaint diagnosed from in breeding and she said her life was misery. Recessive genes may miss a generation but they remain like time bombs. You only have to look at the royal families through history to see how harmful this practice is. They bred within their own families to maintain their power but it didn't do much for their health!
It's pretty bad, the brain literally decays while your still alive till eventually it can't even perform basic life functions such as breathing. It's quite a awful disease.
It is an awful disease. I watch my Mom go through it. It took 6 years to finally kill her so she can RIP. As her brain turned into swiis cheese, she did manage to maintain ESP communication (choppy, but was still there to the end). Heartbreaking to hear your dear Mom beg for you to end the torture. I would cry after every visit. To see and feel a brillant mind trapped and rotting away. is very hard.
Why the dislikes? Why can so many not finish watching? This was a very informative video. She was not suggesting this was appropriate for humans. Wow, people are so easily triggered.
Somehow, no matter what I look up, I end up with a Gross Science video. Today, the unusual turn of events that got me here was an episode of Dead To Me where the mention of purchasing a dog from a breeder came up. Since I hadn't had a dog since childhood, I googled "what's wrong with breeders?" This video came up as one of the results. I both love and hate the internet for reminding me how horrible humans can be. Looking for my rose-colored glasses now.
Or the British, they love some cousin-marriage. Noble families are fraught with genetic problems because of how much cousin-marrying went on. Or how about the Amish? Or the FLDS churches? Inbreeding happens in *any* insular community. Take your bigotry elsewhere.
Only upper nobility of Europe (a tiny fraction of the population) were/are routinely marrying cousins. Inbreeding in Pakistani communities is VERY common so much so that Baroness Flather (herself born in Pakistan) has tried to address this issue in parliament because of the vastly disproportionate instance of genetic illness among such populations.
A tiny fraction of the European population got married by force as teenagers, but a lot of people married their cousins. When you live in a village with 200 people, it's hard not to. The FLDS, Hasidic, and Amish communities have the same problem--when you have a small marriage pool, you're more likely to marry a first cousin. Edgar Allen Poe? Married his cousin. Charles Darwin, too. And Pakistan, being a relatively rural and developing country, has a lot of small villages.
Cousin marriage OVER ONE GENERATION doesn't increase the genetic risk THAT much. 6% vs 3% for background population. But over repeated generations, however....
Informative and well spoken. Subscribed. Sadly people have driven more wild mammals to inbreed, due to our negative influence. Now their gene pool is very limited.
Inbreeding is probably a evolutionary mechanism. When a population lowers to the point where inbreeding is inevitable inbreeding causes various recessive traits to emerge giving a huge boost to variability.
Inbreeding is how recessive traits get fixed in a population. It's one of the rules of animal husbandry. It's also why so many distinct ethnic types developed in prehistory when humans lived in isolated small tribal groups of hunter gatherers for extended periods ie. many successive generations. But during that time there was extreme environmental selection pressure on the population that quickly culled disadvantageous recessives, and some recessives we now consider bad actually have some survival advantage in those primitive situations. For instance there's evidence that type 2 diabetes imparts some resistance to starvation during extended periods of minimal food availability, which affected the older less valuable hunters long before the members of the tribe in their prime. Another example is sickle cell anemia which seems to impart some resistance to malaria. Inbreeding for a single generation absent recessives for genetic birth defects generally isn't much worse than marrying a first cousin, but continued intermarriage of first cousins or siblings for a string of generations will generally expose all negative genetic traits as well as fix the positive recessives.
Here in the UK our free health system has been heavily burdened by the deformities of the offspring of Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants breading with their fathers, brother, sisters and 1st, 2nd and third cousins.
Well, the Habsburg and Southern hillbilly’s tried it, and “nothing,” happened, Besides birth defects and overwhelming pain of pregnancy and other problems...
Um no. It doesn't take long for a inbred communities to breed each other out of existence with health problems. Some very isolated and rural Amish people in North America, after just a couple generations since first settling in the 1800s are already very in decline and suffer health problems that need modern medicine and treatment which they obviously don't have easy access to
