Sufficient humans to repopulate?

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
In reality though humility is when I stop countering your claims, which I haven’t yet so don’t get your hopes up.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to tomorrow then when you counter his claims...

maybe hell will freeze over...


i think it is obvious that a single pregnant female could repopulate a species, because it has in all probability happened for other species in the past. Why wouldn't it be possible for humans?
 
I just did!, did you not read my post above?

but very unlikely, hence a recommendation of 30 was made is some nature article several years ago about the genetics of low populations (I can remember when and the title).
Click to expand...

sure it could happen, at about the same chance as me winning the lottery. You need a gene pool with some variety to start with to make the chances of success likely.

and now I can't sleep, fuck off!
new_gmorning.gif
 
How much time do you have with one viable female? Speciation did not happen like that it happens from small population becoming genetically separated and under the strain of different environmental factors, it still requires a breeding population.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
i think it is obvious that a single pregnant female could repopulate a species, because it has in all probability happened for other species in the past. Why wouldn't it be possible for humans?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
But usually when that happens the species starts to evolve into a new one. At least from what I've seen. I find it very interesting, its seems very convenient, if the numbers are that low somethings not right and walla, they evolve.
I tried to make a thread about this subject but nobody cared:(
 
ya at our population we are going to evolve at the same rate jellyfish.

or is that just something that came to your mind from 3001? ;)
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
ya at our population we are going to evolve at the same rate jellyfish.
Click to expand...

it is difficult to predict selective pressure that will drive evolution of a species. There is no reason to assume that repopulating a species from a single, or a few individuals will seriously change the essence of the human species. We are already quite good opportunists. If we do not need to change our lifestyle, then there might not be any different selective pressures than right now, with a population of billions.
 
reply to wellcooked

do your homework! read!

use search terms like 'founder population'. 'minimum viable population'

hawaii is a great place to start.

it could happen, and it probably has in some species, perhaps even humans.

but you refuse to learn.

don't you know that knowing everything is the surest obstacle to ever learning anything
 
I did do my homework that strait from a General Biology textbook written in the last 3 years. It requires a founding population and never mentions a situation of just one individual begetting a how species.
 
A second example is Speke's gazelle. The entire North American herd was derived from 1 male 3 females. Obviously, from very first generation, all individuals breed in captivity were related (all had to have single male founder as a common ancestor). Hence, pedigree inbreeding unavoidable. Thus, founder and bottleneck effects promote rapid increases in pedigree inbreeding.
Click to expand...

almost one.

source: link
 
Yes almost, but was the species recovered or is this a new species now, see the question was how many do you need to repopulate the species without result in something that is genetically and phenotypically distinct even incompatible, from the original.
 
And with just one how would that work? Unless it hermaphroditic?
Even so the amount of inbreeding would be so intense that very few offspring would survive and if any do they did would most likely be genetically distinct for the original.
 
cookedfetus

why will you not learn?

why will you not think?

you amaze me?

you read a general biology book and you think you know everything.

you really are a fool.

one pregnant female could be sufficient to repopulate.
 
like I said it could be but its very unlikely, way don't you ever read what I said? Does your ego problem blind you?
 
Re: reply to swede

Originally posted by paulsamuel

stick to the topic instead of attacking the response
Click to expand...

i felt it was necessary to mention because all i see coming from you is insults. i have yet to find a post in this forum written by you that does not include an ad hominem. that certainly does make a good argument nor does it form the basis of knowledge as you claim to know all about. before you yell at others for getting off topic, check to see how on topic you are yourself.

continue gentlemen/gentlewomen
 
so 1 pregnant female, huh?

sure she'd be able to repopulate but i'm not sure it's a great idea. the founder of hawaiian drosophila may have had success but they also reproduce, hence evolve, significantly faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top