So... Do we all have sex with our relative?

[DawnB]

According to the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve, if they were the first humans, then yes, all humans would be related. This is because the story depicts them as the sole progenitors of the human race, with all subsequent individuals being their descendants. Eve is referred to as the "mother of all living," and all human beings are believed to be descendants of both Adam and Eve. The Bible explicitly states that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men," implying a shared ancestry.
This perspective supports the idea that the term "races" is inappropriate because all humans are of one race descended from Adam and Eve. The saying "brotherhood of man" also stems from the belief that everyone is a descendant of Adam.
The biblical account also explains how the human population grew from a single couple, indicating that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, making it possible for later generations to reproduce.
However, the story of Adam and Eve is a religious narrative, not a scientific explanation of human origins. Evolutionary science states that humans evolved from earlier primates. While all humans are related through common ancestry, the origin of the human species is understood differently. Modern science also identifies the Y-chromosomal Adam as the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, indicating a shared ancestry from a scientific standpoint, though this is a different concept than the biblical narrative.

[SotiCoto]

You don't need any of that religious "adam and eve" bullsh! t to know that all humans are related at some level or other... but it is largely irrelevant.
I'll put it this way:

You are exactly 50% related to both of your parents.
You are also exactly 50% related to any children you have.

You are between 0% and 100% variably related to any full siblings you have... because your siblings also have 50% of their genes from each parent, but whether those are the same genes you got or the other copy is random in each case.

So... just for example... you are between 0% and 50% related to your uncles / aunts (i. e. parent connection + sibling connection). And you are between 0% and 25% related to first cousins. That would be 0% to 12.5% for second cousins. Average 6.25% ...

Of course that only counts the parts that actually vary... as opposed to all the parts necessary to make a functioning human, where you'd simply never have been born if it wasn't there.

Anyway... why do I bring all this up?
Alleles. For each part of your genome you get half of it from one parent and half from another parent. They're usually different, and quite often the "stronger" of the two wins. That is a really dumbed down version of how genetics works. Now this is the important bit: If your parents have the same genetic data due to being closely related, then there is an increased chance of you getting two copies of the same alleles.
Much of the time this doesn't matter... but sometimes there are alleles that code for really awful heritable conditions... and they're normally kept in check due to there only being one copy (which is prevented from activating due to being paired with another allele). But since inbreeding can cause multiple copies of the same alleles to meet up in subsequent generations, sooner or later this results in multiple copies of really bad shit being brought together that never should have been...
And I think everyone can guess what that looks like.

Still... it isn't fucking likely unless you have multiple generations of parents & children or siblings getting it on.

Oh... here is a super fun fact though: If you got a population to really aggressively inbreed for many generations and culled all the horrid mutants to stop them breeding, you could eventually breed out all the genetic defects and create a completely pure and homogenous race... in theory. Pretty sure that is what a lot of royal families tried for... and failed. Probably failed the culling part. Gotta cull the undesirables.

[Cormac995]

It's actually been proven with genetic tests that all humans do actually have a common ancestor if you trace it far enough back to so technically yea all sex is incest. The good news is this ancestor is before the stone age so we're fine. Genetic diversity as long since become distant enough as long as you aren't fucking your first cousin you should be fine and even then, first cousins still have a decent safe reproductive rate. At least it's stable enough that it hasn't destroyed countries where that's still legal.

Actually, now that I remember right first cousin marriages are actually legal in some states if I recall? Before you ask why I know this you'd be surprised how many threads on this site actually are people in incestuous relationships asking for advice. It's kind of nuts and made me realize it happens more often than people think. I sure as shit don't get it but I also don't get along well with my sister and think she's a bitch so that might be part of it lol.

That said my attitude has always been if everyone's consenting adults it's not my or anyone else's business so normally I just try not to judge people even in those circumstances. In fact, some of the people I've talked to on these threads in those have healthier relationships than a lot of "Normal" ones I see at least in regard to how they treat each other with respect love and dignity.

It's really fucking weird but I've struggled finding love so much I don't have the heart to really criticize anyone who has because it makes me feel like I'm just being spiteful out of hurt if I do because they're happy and I'm not and I don't want to be a bitter old man.

[PeachyPie93]

No not really I watched a thing on genetics and I think at seven generations back, less than 1% of your DNA is likely to have come from any given ancestor. So no we aren't all being incest but the first few generations of people were lol.

[Kelley1]

For all 3 million years of human existence, humans mated with their cousins.

[OneViewpoint]

The whole concept of incest and inbreeding and the resulting risks have only been really understood for a 100 years or so. Oh sure, people were able to see results 1,000 years ago in inbred royalty and so forth. But the mechanisms were not understood.

Today, at least in the USA. Our definitions of incest and inbreeding are basically relying on science to define what sort of genetic diversity is necessary to avoid passing on common genetic problems. And that's what shows up in our laws for the most part. Not totally precise because the religiots always get involved and their "beliefs" drive legislation in some cases. So, "second cousins" tend be where the line is drawn. But first cousin marriage is legal in 27 states. No US state allows a legal marriage between siblings, uncles and nieces, or aunts and nephews where they are blood relations.

But laws are one thing and human behavior is another. Who knows what actually goes on and how common it is. Kids are curious, horny, and stupid during puberty. Men and women grow up to be perverts.

[Chazmatazz269]

Probably more than you think even if you wholly disregard the biblical narrative.
It’s estimated that nearly 120 billion people have lived on this planet. The idea that bloodlines haven’t crossed and come back to their own many times over the full course of human history is just absurd. Mathematically impossible, in fact.
We have literally observed incest in “lesser” primates. You think our less evolved ancestors didn’t keep it in the family? European elites were known to inbreed in order to keep their wealth and power in the same family.
Any challenge to the reality of human inbreeding is wishful thinking at best; most likely willful ignorance.

[lightbulb27]

in essence, probably yes. very distant. haven't seen close relatives but have heard of.

Im sure the kids were quite pathetic after eating that forbidden fruit and all those hormones. the bible says so. Evolution... isn't much of an improvement.

I guess that be true of every species as well. There's no evidence of an elephant mating with a rhino to make an Eliphino. not quite sure what accounts for the variation either. how does anything "evolve" to a different species?

[QuestionObsession]

The Bible is horse shit and bull shit mixed with dog shit.

Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapien Sapien, but they were not the only ones created. There were many others created after them and none of them is related to another. They all had their own kids so there was no incest either.

Adam and Eve were not created by a God, but by Gods. There were more than one Gods. The line in Genesis tells of God saying "Let us make man in our image". Who were "us" and who were "our"? There were more than one Gods.

Adam and Eve were genetically engineered by combining Hominids DNA with the DNA of those Gods. They picked the Hominids over the much older species by millions of years like crocodiles and sharks and crabs, because Hominids were the closest to what these Gods needed, to make intelligent slaves out of them.

The garden of Eden was a laboratory for these genetic experiments.

[jshm2]

LOL, you need to learn to read properly.

The bible doesn't say Adam and Eve were the only humans, in fact it doesn't even call them human per say.

Likewise, most of the scientific explanation is mostly presumption, there is no consensus on what happened and why.

But both have different purviews and different markets. You're being a fool trying to reconcile the two.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

They are pretty often reconciled considering the vast number of people considering the Old Testament as parables, and using the New Testament to get some ethical foundations

[WonderingManII]

Under this logic, it is true. However my grandfather thought that God created the races at the Tower of Babel. That was when God created other languages and scattered the people. It's just a bible theory, cause it doesn't say that God created the races at that time but it kinda makes sense since people would have met others who spoke the same language they did.

[strateguy632]

Do you mean created new people at tower?

[WonderingManII]

@strateguy632 No, as the people left in groups that happened to speak the same language. Those groups had kids within those groups, and those kids had kids. The characteristics of each group evolved like that. It's like when people breed dogs to get different sizes and shapes.

[AndrésC64]

Don't forget about the time that God murdered nearly every living thing on the planet except for eight people that he deemed worthy of not being drowned. Children? Drown them! Infants? Drown them! Animals? Drown them. So from that point on it was incest all over again. God apparently loves incest.

[TheWombRaider]

Yes we are all from one person. Weather it's Biblical or Evolution we all come from one original person or cell. Only Creation makes sense. Evolution doesn't make sense at all. Macro Evolution that is. Micro Evolution absolutely exists. But not Macro. A fish didn't turn into a Dog. Man didn't come from monkeys. If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?

[Kaneki05]

Well the bible is more incest positive than evolution with it been a direct line, that's obviously false from any amount of research.

The real evolution of humans is way less linear, and less incest. Both still have it though.

[WhitneySnow]

Yeah, but they’re REALLY distant relatives. This is true whether you believe in creationism or evolution.

[strateguy632]

Huh, if evolution is "patrilineal most recent common ancestor" it is just as bad incest?

[bowenw]

It would seem so regardless of the narrative.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No. The beginning is totally different.

Eve came from Adam's body and the siblings reproduce with one another.

Now, that's extremely evil and disgusting.

[CaptainSmartass]

Nope. Not all of us live in Alabama.

Simples...

[jahaims]

If everyone came from one couple everyone would literally be retarded. That's how genetics work.

[Jeff51]

Im sure few gag members have some fun doing it.

[bananathunder]

not all but I'm sure there are some out there...

[Kelly6]

@DawnB Yes and its still common now a days

[Lilly1979]

Not a relative. But a cousin of a cousin.

[Anonymous]

Nope, I never had sex at all.

[Anonymous]

I have in the past.