You are talking about Purging selection:
Purging selection occurs where the phenotypes of deleterious recessive alleles are exposed through inbreeding, and thus can be selected against. This theoretically can lead to such detrimental mutations being removed from the population, and has been demonstrated to occur rapidly where the recessive alleles have a lethal effect. Unfortunately, genetic drift has a strong influence on small inbred populations, which can cause the fixation of sublethal deleterious alleles where there is only a weak selective pressure against them. The fixation of a single allele for a specific gene can also reduce fitness where heterozygote advantage (where heterozygous individuals have higher fitness than homozygotes of either allele) was previously present. As a result, the influence of attempting to purge deleterious mutations from a population can either increase or decrease the fitness of a population, and is not generally recommended as a technique to improve the fitness of captive bred animals."
So if you wanted to practice this in your life I would recommend selecting a mate who is not from a genetically limited community.
Inbreeding depression is the exact opposite of your statement "With inbreeding, there's strong selection to reduce the frequency of disadvantageous genes.". Inbreeding depression is when there is a strong selection to increase the frequency of disadvantageous genes.
Fumarase deficiency had only been seen in 13 people worldwide until 1990 when 20 cases all showed up among inbred Mormon (LDS) populations.
The symptoms are like I said in my original comment:
"severe mental retardation, unusual facial features"
This is only one example of Inbreeding Depression but it serves to back up my point nicely.
The cure for inbreeding depression is outbreeding enhancement
but what if it is -GASP- a smartphone?
I'm afraid that is just something your parents told you to make you feel better about them being cousins.
It's called Inbreeding Depression and it's not psychological.
"Inbreeding (ie., breeding between closely related individuals) may on the one hand result in more recessive deleterious traits manifesting themselves, because the genomes of pair-mates are more similar: recessive traits can only occur in offspring if present in both parents' genomes, and the more genetically similar the parents are, the more often recessive traits appear in their offspring. Consequently, the more closely related the breeding pair is, the more homozygous deleterious genes the offspring may have, resulting in very unfit individuals. For alleles that confer an advantage in the heterozygous and/or homozygous-dominant state, the fitness of the homozygous-recessive state may even be zero (meaning sterile or unviable offspring)."
Join me in class, won't you?
You don't need that part. Luckily you don't have to satisfy every definition of a word at the same time. English would be impossible if that were true.
Selection is outside of the scope I gave you and for good reason.
I am speaking of biological evolution with no respect to behavioral science.
It is my opinion that behavioral science is bullshit and sexual selection is arbitrary. You didn't specify what kind of selection, either. There are countless different types of selection and factors that influence which animals mate and which ones do not.
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. Look at the biological definition of the word. Every child satisfies the definition. It doesn't matter who the parents are or why.
Genetic science didn't exist when Darwin wrote his theory so don't act like it is the only source material on the subject. Many scientific theories have changed in the last 100 years. If you still function on outdated teachings then it is you who needs to return to school to learn about new developments.
The problem with your statement is that the existence of "species" is more controversial than the theory of evolution. I would say that the word species is not well defined.
Species used to be defined by what animals are sexually compatible enough to create offspring. A more recent definition, using genetic science, could relate to the number of chromosomes. The mule is an example that shows the problem well:
"A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare). Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes."
How is it possible that a horse and a donkey can have children if they are different species?
If there is real evolution, then we will end up with a new species.
The mule is a third species. It is neither horse nor donkey. So according to your requirements there is real evolution.
For more information, please read:
Maybe you don't understand the word: Evolution. Let me scope it out here for you.
You said that you believe in genes. Let's assume that you believe in the reproductive process too. When the genes of two parents combine you get all sorts of possible outcomes for the genetic result, or child. This child is then a combination of parental traits and yet not the mother nor the father. The child is new. We have also witnessed random mutation. You with me so far?
Now let's read the biological definition of the word Evolution:
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
If you believe that you are different than your parents then you believe in evolution. If evolution did not occur then you would be an identical twin of your father or mother.
Yes, that degree of incest is unreasonable. You could repopulate the Earth with really tall, ugly retards with your plan for the future.
Better stock up on batteries. I'm not sure how long you plan to live but the batteries will go bad within 3-5 years. I doubt they will still be selling batteries for this device in 5 years.
This is literally SkyNet
You're not asking for a VPN. You're asking for a new routing protocol.
Once you have written a new routing protocol just submit it to the IEEE. Then you have to convince the large router manufacturers to use your standard.
You might want to get a job at CISCO. You would have better luck there.
Could someone please explain this finding to me using a car analogy?
Not a fan of public works projects?
I'll bet you don't need things like the interstate highway system or railroads. The backbone of our society. The reason you have food at the supermarket.
"How it that relevant?" you might ask. Right now, Amtrak is collecting bids from manufacturers to build a high speed rail system in America. It's been talked about for decades.
How is it that we are finally getting a high speed rail project? Obama authorized funding. That's right. Taxpayers are buying a huge public works project that will benefit everyone. It will create countless jobs not only to build but to operate and maintain. In the future people will be able to look back and say "I'm sure glad we have this nice rail system". People like you will forget how it got there.
Check it out:
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.