Incest Deterrence & Morality is Objectivity

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a big range of living organisms within the animal [non-human] kingdom.
I did not mention about frequencies related to animals. However, I did qualify 'higher animals' where incest avoidance is very evident. Upon reaching maturity, either the males or females will leave the pack, pride or group.

However this inbreeding avoidance potential is an early adaption and it is not very active in the majority of humans.
Thus there is room for variation in the expression of this inbreeding-avoidance algorithm.

When the first humans first emerged or form small groups when they migrated, there is bound to be close-relation [parent-child, siblings, etc.] incest to increase the number of humans within the group.

However, because there is an inherent inbreeding-avoidance algorithm, it will take effect as as the number within the group or population increases.
With the increase in greater numbers within the group, parent-child, siblings, inbreeding instances will wane but the lesser risk cousin-inbreeding may still be going on.
But as the population increase greater, cousin-inbreeding will also waned in time especially now that we have >8 billion and the scientific knowledge of the risk of inbreeding even with cousins.

But even with the more active inbreeding-avoidance algorithm, incest will still happen due to various other psychological weakness and other reasons [given earlier].

But because the interbreeding avoidance algorithm [IAA] is inherent in ALL humans with varying degrees of activity and strength, humanity need to recognize its physical existence as objective [independent of individuals' view].

With this recognition the IAA exists physically and is objective morally, humanity can strive to increase the strength and activeness to the extent that there will be ZERO cases of incest [close or cousin related] except where both participants have damaged brain re incest avoidance.

When the majority are ignorant of this IAA as objective, they will be indifferent to its existence and will not be do any thing to improve its strength in striving to prevent and reduce cases of incest to ZERO [with exception in cases of those with brain-damaged].

With the propensity for ZERO cases of incest, humanity could even go the extent of preventing brain damage at its root to avoid incest.

Your claims are unsupported by any evidence. If as you suggest (but as may not be correct) inbreeding has a negative influence on descendent leaving success, is it reasonable to claim there is an "inbreeding-avoidance algorithm" somehow encoded in human DNA. Of course it isn't. Why would it be? Is every potentially adaptive trait "encoded"? Of course not. In fact, many species go extinct. Is behavior "encoded"? Not that we know of.

I did not claim ALL human behaviors are encoded in the DNA.
What I have been claiming is, the basic instincts are encoded and hardwire, e.g. the 4Fs, food [& water], fight, flight, fuck [sex], breathing, tribalism and other basic instincts that are critical for basis survival.
Thus, you cannot deny behaviors initiated from the above basic instincts are encoded.

Are you familiar with Maslow's Hierarch of Needs. The higher needs are triggered when the lower ones are sufficiently met.
There is a hierarchy of basic instincts and motivators.
The moral functions that are encoded and hardwired are one level up the hierarchy and they either dormant, less active or active in different humans.
One [among many] of this is the interbreeding avoidance algorithm [IAA].

The assumption that because we (i.e. Veritas) might assume that behaviors which enhance Darwinian "success" are so encoded is incorrect on two counts. First, we lack evidence that such behaviors DO enhance Darwinian success. Second, the notion that all human behaviors are "encoded" is silly.

You are wrong in claiming there are no evidence "success" traits.
You should research on the related literature.

I did not claim all human behaviors are "encoded".
I claimed only the basic functions and instincts are encoded and when they combined with various variables a posteriori, they contribute to wide variety of complex behaviors.

It certainly might be true that exogamy promotes descendent-leaving success, but the evidence (cross-cousin marriage) suggests that the reason is cultural: promoting economic and social relations between clans may very well enhance survival and genetic success.

As I had stated the encoded inbreeding avoidance algorithm [IAA] is encoded [as evident] but has varying degrees of activeness in different humans and groups.

Inbreeding has potential risks depending on whether it is closely linked relations or distance ones.
This is why inbreeding between closely related are a taboo all over the world while 'Cross-cousin marriage' are still acceptable at present.

While 'Cross-cousin marriage' are of lower risks and still used for various social and political reasons at present, there nevertheless risks especially if there is a negative mutation and messed-up DNA codings.

You seem to accept mediocre standards and could not care less if a few children happened to be born with genetic defects.
With humans we should not play with numbers or statistics, e.g. if 0.1% of genetic defects happened, that is OK. Ok to you but whatever the individual patient and the parents. What if you are the parent and your child by chance has a genetic defect due to incest between cousins.

The aim of morality-proper is to achieve ZERO genetics related problems due to incest within humans [only].
To do so, we need to recognize incest as immoral, period! thus an objective moral fact, but only as a moral standard and guide.
With this as a standard, humanity need to strive to prevent incestuous relationships in the most optimal ways* toward the future.

* perhaps inculcating [not now but in the future] humans from their childhood to understand the dangers and possible genetic risks related to incest; in addition to influence them to be indifferent of all sort of incestuous relations, even with cross cousins marriages.
this is possible as shown by the indifference of the present majority's attitude to chattel slavery compared to say 500, 200, 100 years ago.

[Alexiev]

As I had stated the encoded inbreeding avoidance algorithm [IAA] is encoded [as evident] but has varying degrees of activeness in different humans and groups.

Inbreeding has potential risks depending on whether it is closely linked relations or distance ones.
This is why inbreeding between closely related are a taboo all over the world while 'Cross-cousin marriage' are still acceptable at present.

Except it's not "evident". In fact, the "evidence" points in the other direction: that incest avoidance is culturally constituted rather than genetic. Which gene, exactly, creates the taboo against incest? Where, exactly, is the "evidence"?

What is "evident" is that this discussion is not fruitful. You simply repeat yourself, ignore any actual "evidence" and provide no evidence in support of your position. The universality of certain taboos against incest does not constitute evidence that the taboo is based on a genetic "algorithm". Why would it? Does the fact that children in England grow up speaking English prove that speaking English results from a genetic algorithm?

Once again, you misunderstand the evidence cross-cousin (vs. parallel cousin) marriage provides. Oh, well. Have a good day.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated the encoded inbreeding avoidance algorithm [IAA] is encoded [as evident] but has varying degrees of activeness in different humans and groups.

Inbreeding has potential risks depending on whether it is closely linked relations or distance ones.
This is why inbreeding between closely related are a taboo all over the world while 'Cross-cousin marriage' are still acceptable at present.

Except it's not "evident". In fact, the "evidence" points in the other direction: that incest avoidance is culturally constituted rather than genetic. Which gene, exactly, creates the taboo against incest? Where, exactly, is the "evidence"?

What is "evident" is that this discussion is not fruitful. You simply repeat yourself, ignore any actual "evidence" and provide no evidence in support of your position. The universality of certain taboos against incest does not constitute evidence that the taboo is based on a genetic "algorithm". Why would it? Does the fact that children in England grow up speaking English prove that speaking English results from a genetic algorithm?

Once again, you misunderstand the evidence cross-cousin (vs. parallel cousin) marriage provides. Oh, well. Have a good day.

It is obvious inbreeding as an evolutionary default is a necessity and common among the species of all living things.
However as we move up the complexity of livings up to humans there are evidences of the reduction in degrees of inbreeding.
You cannot deny this evidences as presented by scientists.
The degrees of inbreeding reduces in corresponding with the lower complexity of animals.
This reduction in the degree of inbreeding corresponds to the increase in the activity of the inbreeding-avoidance algorithm.

If we fixed human inbreeding avoidance at 100 [as an index] then the occurrences in primates may be say 50/100 or lower, plants at 1/100 as supporting by researched evidences.
Regardless of the range of degrees, there is no denial that there is something in the brain that activates the varying degrees of inbreeding avoidance.
This is also supported by the reducing trend of incest naturally and rejection of incest within humanity from say 5000, 1000, 500 years to the present 2014.
This is what I meant by 'evident'.
Do you have a counter for this?

What is driving the continuing reducing trend of incest within humanity?
If it is activated in the brain, then there must a specific neural algorithm that support it.
If it is neural algorithm, then it must have been encoded as inferred.

Which gene for inbreeding avoidance?? You are asking too much based on ignorance of genomics.
At this stage of genetics and genomics, the most scientists can do is to infer that there is a gene [genotype] that represent a certain phenotype [expression of the gene].
However, upon the completion of the Human Genome Project in mapping the coding of the human DNA, there is very slow progress of matching genes to phenotype, but scientists are trying to speed it up.
At present, the best scientists can do is to infer the relation of phenotype to a genotype.
That is what I have been doing with the inbreeding avoidance phenotype inference to its genotype.

Does the fact that children in England grow up speaking English prove that speaking English results from a genetic algorithm?

You are ignorant on this.
There is no 'speaking English' gene to be inferred.
However, Chomsky had inferred there is the universal grammar gene which enable universal grammar. There should also be a language gene which is expressed into different types of language due to different epigenetic conditions.

The universality of certain taboos against incest does not constitute evidence that the taboo is based on a genetic "algorithm". Why would it?

As stated above, we can infer the inbreeding avoidance phenotypes to its gene in humans.
As I mentioned there is evidence of a trend within humans in the reduction on the acceptance of incest around the world. At present only parallel or cross cousins and distanced-cousins are acceptable but the trend is reducing greatly across the world.

I was not familiar with parallel or cross cousins marriage earlier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ ... ss_cousins
now that I know the specifics, it makes no difference to my point at all.

I mentioned Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs [MHN] and its principles as applied to morality and inbreeding avoidance.
In the initial stages of human evolution, inbreeding was unavoidable and even critically necessary.
If humanity started with one male and one woman somewhere in Africa [Genomics has supported this theory], then incest was unavoidable to facilitate the preservation of the species [or the selfish genes]; after the population increased, the inherent inbreeding avoidance algorithm is established and triggered, and degrees of incest gradually decreases as the individual[s] evolved higher as in the principles of the MHN*.

*This MHN is critical to explain the triggering of the moral principle as humans self-conscious and reflection move up the hierarchy. Do not ignore this in this discussion.