Inbreeding may have caused Darwin family ills, study suggests

Inbreeding may have caused Darwin family ills, study suggests
Inbreeding may have caused Darwin family ills, study suggests

Inbreeding may have caused Darwin family ills, study suggests
Date:May 3, 2010


Source: Science Daily via Ohio State University


Summary:
New research suggests that Charles Darwin's family was a living human example of a theory that he developed about plants: that inbreeding could negatively affect the health and number of resulting offspring.


"New research suggests that Charles Darwin's family was a living human example of a theory that he developed about plants: that inbreeding could negatively affect the health and number of resulting offspring.


Darwin was married to his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. They had 10 children, but three died before age 10, two from infectious diseases. And three of the six surviving children with long-term marriages did not produce any offspring -- a "suspicious" sign, researchers say, that these Darwins could have had reproductive problems because of their lineage.


Studies have shown that susceptibility to infectious disease and unexplained infertility are risk factors of consanguineous marriage -- unions of people related by birth.


Scientists at Ohio State University and in Spain traced the genealogy of the Darwin and Wedgwood families for four generations. Darwin's mother and grandfather also were Wedgwoods, and his mother's parents were third cousins.


The researchers used these data to run calculations in a specialized computer program to determine what is called an "inbreeding coefficient," or the probability that an individual received two identical copies of a gene resulting from marriages among relatives.


The analysis showed a positive association between child mortality and the inbreeding coefficient for Charles Darwin's children and others in the Darwin/Wedgwood families, suggesting that matching damaging genetic traits from the blood-relative parents could have influenced the health of the offspring.


Darwin authored three botanical books showing that cross-fertilization was much more beneficial than self-fertilization for maintaining robust and plentiful plant species. He began to worry about the effects of Darwin-Wedgwood inbreeding on his own family after the death of his daughter, Annie, of tuberculosis at age 10 -- the second of his children to die young.


"He fretted that the ill health of his children might be due to the nature of the marriage, and he came to that because of his work on plants. He realized that with breeding of any kind, it's better to cross-breed than to put close relatives together," said Tim Berra, lead author of the study and professor emeritus of evolution, ecology and organismal biology at Ohio State's Mansfield campus."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele.../2010/05/100503111420.htm

 

 

**FAIR USE**

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

  • Inbreeding may have caused Darwin family ills, study suggests

Please Support the Research of S8int.com!

Support S8int.com with a PayPal Donation!

Since 2002, Chris Parker has done the majority of the research and writing of articles for s8int.com. If this site has been an encouragement to you, please donate to support Chris's ongoing research. (S8int.com is not incorporated and your donations may not be tax deductable.)

More Posts About Featured

Nine  Pterosaur Depictions in Ancient Art from Various Peoples from the Continent of Africa?
“So God Created the Great Dragons” Genesis 1:21 Yes, the Bible Mentions “Dinosaurs
The Day the Sun Stood Still--Joshua's Long Day
The Viking Pendant That Looks Too Much Like a Sauropod Dinosaur
True Suppressions: Remembering the “Granby Idol” Un-Fakeable Relic Showing Dinosaur Human Mastodon Interaction in Pre-Glacial Granite
Roots of Human Family Tree Are Remarkably Shallow; All Alive Today Share 1 Common Ancestor
Creationists and Materialists Can Unite; There Were No Gigantic Trees in Earth’s Past! A 500 Yard Tree Trunk Near Yosemite Park in California? I Regret to Inform You That Yes, There Were Such Trees.
When The Antarctic Was Warm: Science Frontiers
True Suppressions: Archaeological Coverups--A Plot to Control History?
The Day the Sun Stood Still--Joshua's Long Day 
The Real Story of Vero Beach Wasn’t Ancient Mammoth Art but Rather; Ancient "Mammoth" Humans with Giant Reptiles Says State Geologist
All it Took Was Two; One Male and One Female
An Essay Concerning Giants, by Dr. Thomas Molyneux M.D., Philosophical Transactions 1700-Taking the Logic out of MythoLOGICal
The Handwriting is On the Wall for Biblical "Higher Criticism"
The Worldwide Flood of Noah is Old News: Newspaper Articles Confirming Evidence and Proofs of the Flood Before Darwinian Censorship
Scientific Censorship and Evolution: Neo-Darwinism: Time to Reconsider
The Suffering Servant-The Hope of Israel-The 24 Books of the Torah and the Old Testament Agree
That's A Very Good Question. I Notice That IT Was Originally Asked By A Snake.
Grisly find suggests humans inhabited Arctic 45,000 years ago
Dinosaur and Human Interaction in Our Times; the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago-Sun Times etc.- Historical Newspapers by Chris Parker