- Aug 5, 2016
- 5,797
- 30,395
Barely 10 mins to look at things in the website, if it's not in the op yet, @ me again and I'll do it in when I come back with time do things.
- Thread starter Hitman955
- Start date
- Aug 8, 2017
- 23,687
- 16,225
Here you go @TCMS its over 2 hours now and since you ask for it.
Please add into to the 1st post, thank you.
- Jul 3, 2017
- 1,017
- 1,396
But then you have to ask, "How common are 'recessive conditions'? Looking at
You must be registered to see the links
:You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
- Aug 16, 2016
- 247
- 395
EVERYBODY has recessive conditions. It may just be a dumb gene that mutated 300 generations ago and that, since it never activated (maybe because present only in that family tree), it didn't affect the hosts and it was never subjected to natural selection and so it "survived".
That's why mostly animals try (when possible) to avoid inbreeding.
Does the study specify if it was a one-time thing or if it ran in the family? If the second scenario is the case, then the genetic fallout can be severe to deadly.
By passing on our genes via sex they essentially mutate to form a new genetic code. There are generally three types of mutations: positive ones which result in biological/evolutionary advantages (more fur for colder climates, slightly better eyes, slightly better hearing, etc. Sadly no X-Ray vision, supersonic flight or laser eyes...), neutral ones which are not noticable (kind of like that one uncle in every family which is just sort of "there" and nobody is too interested in talking too) and negative ones. Those can either be deadly from the word go and nature just gives up. Or the effects can be detrimental to the organism, which usually results in lowered chances for survival. At least in a world where evolution/survival of the fittest was a factor... A (drastically) reduced IQ, tendency towards diseases (i.e. cancer) or physical deformations, etc.
- Jul 3, 2017
- 1,017
- 1,396
Fairly sure they're taken to be one-offs, not the end result of generations of close inbreeding. I take 'history of incest' to mean that it has been established that incest had taken place, and later confirmed the child in question is the product of it.
- May 9, 2017
- 1,305
- 1,918
I will finish my participation in this discussion with this post, since it is going off topic:
Those who have been culturally indoctrinated to accept or reject consanguineous relationship, will support or attack incest purely based on their cultural views. Facts will be irrelevant. Those who are interested in the truth will take facts and what is scientifically proven as valid and just forget about cultural preferences. Well, here are the facts:
"EVERYBODY has recessive conditions" It is a wild speculation, not a fact. Otherwise our world, specially in the Middle East, North of Africa and Asia, would be full of monstrous mutants!
"That's why mostly animals try (when possible) to avoid inbreeding" This is true to some extent: It is better for the species if genes are mixed, so animals will naturally try to mix their genes. But inbreeding won't be a problem and also happens naturally. ("Sometimes, though, the incest happens by accident. As Gabriella told us: 'Brother and sister dogs sometimes go at it. Ninety-nine percent of the time they are caught in time. But, every once in a while, it's too late, and they get a litter.'" -
You must be registered to see the links
)Documented health risks of incestuous relationship:
First Cousins
(Third-Degree Relatives)
Risk above general population:
- 1.7% to 2.8% for significant congenital defects
(First-Degree Relatives)
Risk above general population:
- 6.8% to 11.2% for significant birth defects (extrapolated from first-cousin data)
You must be registered to see the links
)For comparison, when a man correctly wears a condom in a sexual relation, his level of protection against AIDS is about 85% meaning a risk of 15% of getting infected, and it is called "safe sex". In order to not use double standards, if incest has a risk of 11.2% for birth defects, it should be named "safe reproduction".
Recessive Conditions:
Cousins on average, their progeny will be homozygous at 6.25% (1/16) of gene loci
Thus (extrapolating from cousins data) siblings on average, their progeny will be homozygous at 12.5% (1/8) of gene loci
(
You must be registered to see the links
)Additional reading:
(
You must be registered to see the links
)
- Jul 3, 2017
- 1,017
- 1,396
This implies that not wearing a condom would mean a 100% risk of infection, which is absurdly false.
- May 9, 2017
- 1,305
- 1,918
- Aug 5, 2016
- 5,797
- 30,395
Enough with this discussion. Go back on topic or you will get warned!
well getting back to DMD rather than having kids looking like sloth from the goonies, now that daughter and Elena are out of the picture lets hope Jennifer comes round to console poor dad :heartcoveredeyes: and he consoles her back :FeelsGoodMan:
- Aug 8, 2017
- 23,687
- 16,225
Thats what I want to until dad goes after D. All kinds of plot holes will be fixed in the next 3 updates before they start chap 2.
- Sep 29, 2017
- 183
- 62
When will be the next updated released?
I love this game and i love the story so im excited to know it..Thanks in advance those who have thoughts of update
I love this game and i love the story so im excited to know it..Thanks in advance those who have thoughts of update
- Aug 6, 2017
- 5,731
- 6,068
RELEASE DATES (2017)
Version 0.14: October 20, 2017
Version 0.15: November 17, 2017
Version 0.16: December 22, 2017
You must be registered to see the links
you don't even have to scroll.you can check the patreon page btw its October 20
- Sep 29, 2017
- 183
- 62
- Sep 29, 2017
- 183
- 62
