>>527402469
>exactly my point all along
No, your point was that long-term inbreeding is universally bad. The fact of the matter is that de novo mutations, as far as current screening technology is concerned, completely unpredictable in naturally conceived children. The idea that long-term inbreeding CAN lock in harmful mutations is predicated on the following:
>A mutation occurs
>The mutation is notably deleterious
>The mutation successfully passes from one parent to both children
Any given gene must be present in BOTH parents for incest to affect its propagation, if it's only present in one parent then incest is a non-factor for that particular gene. I don't think you grasp the mathematical odds at play here, but to drive another point home: de novo mutations can actually cause desirable effects as well, and are theorized to be one of the driving forces of the theory of evolution. They can also have no effect whatsoever. Ultimately, the actual risk of long-term inbreeding is incalculable because of this randomness and is only discouraged from a scientific perspective based on the fact that inbreeding CAN propagate undesirable effects while ignoring the fact that both parents would have to be defective for it to matter in the first place. Basically, "it's bad because it just is, okay?"