According to what we know about genetics/biology, what is the minimum number of genetically diverse (non-relative) Adams and Eves necessary for the human race to evolve to a viable/stable gene pool as exists today?
ChatGPT: How many Adams and Eves does it take?
- Thread starter pmbug
- Start date
Highlights thread as a discussion with ChatGPT
Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums
Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
In the context of genetic diversity and population dynamics, the minimum number of individuals needed to establish a genetically diverse and stable population is a topic of ongoing research and debate among geneticists and evolutionary biologists. This concept is often referred to as the "minimum viable population size" or MVP.
For humans, estimates of the minimum number of individuals needed to maintain a healthy gene pool vary depending on the assumptions made about factors such as genetic diversity, mutation rates, reproductive patterns, and the environment. Some studies suggest a minimum of a few thousand individuals to maintain genetic diversity and reduce the risk of inbreeding depression, while others propose larger numbers in the tens of thousands or more.
Furthermore, it's important to consider factors beyond just the initial starting population size. Population growth rates, gene flow between different groups, mutation rates, and selection pressures all play crucial roles in shaping genetic diversity and the long-term viability of a population.
In conclusion, while there is no single definitive answer to the minimum number of genetically diverse humans needed to evolve a stable gene pool, researchers generally agree that a larger initial population size is preferable to mitigate genetic risks and ensure long-term viability.
For humans, estimates of the minimum number of individuals needed to maintain a healthy gene pool vary depending on the assumptions made about factors such as genetic diversity, mutation rates, reproductive patterns, and the environment. Some studies suggest a minimum of a few thousand individuals to maintain genetic diversity and reduce the risk of inbreeding depression, while others propose larger numbers in the tens of thousands or more.
Furthermore, it's important to consider factors beyond just the initial starting population size. Population growth rates, gene flow between different groups, mutation rates, and selection pressures all play crucial roles in shaping genetic diversity and the long-term viability of a population.
In conclusion, while there is no single definitive answer to the minimum number of genetically diverse humans needed to evolve a stable gene pool, researchers generally agree that a larger initial population size is preferable to mitigate genetic risks and ensure long-term viability.
Assume the world is on the brink of nuclear annihilation. 100 non-relative men are selected to inhabit an underground emergency mine shaft habitation. On a scale of 1 to 10, how accurate do you estimate Dr. Strangelove's theory that there should be 10 genetically diverse women for each man to ensure the continuation of the species (assuming all humans not in the habitat die)?
Dr. Strangelove's theory in the movie "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" suggests that a ratio of 10 genetically diverse women to each man is crucial for the continuation of the species following a catastrophic event like nuclear annihilation. This extreme ratio is intended to ensure genetic diversity and avoid inbreeding effects in the small population.
On a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of accuracy, I would rate Dr. Strangelove's theory around a 5 or 6. While the idea behind having a higher number of genetically diverse women for each man is rooted in the importance of genetic diversity and avoiding inbreeding, the specific ratio of 10 women per man may be on the higher end.
In reality, the exact ratio needed to maintain genetic diversity and ensure the survival of the species would depend on various factors such as the initial genetic diversity of the population, reproductive patterns, mutation rates, and selection pressures. Additionally, other strategies such as carefully managed breeding programs, genetic screening, and long-term planning could also play a crucial role in preserving genetic diversity in a small isolated population.
Therefore, while the concept of maintaining genetic diversity through a higher ratio of women to men is valid, the specific ratio of 10 to 1 may not be essential and could potentially lead to other social and psychological challenges within the small surviving population.
If we further specify that none of the habitat candidates are LGTBQ+, does the accuracy estimate change?
Given the additional specification that none of the habitat candidates are LGBTQ+, the accuracy estimate for Dr. Strangelove's theory regarding the ratio of genetically diverse women to men may not change significantly.
Sexual orientation or identity (LGBTQ+ status) does not directly influence the genetic diversity or the genetic dynamics within a population. The key considerations for maintaining genetic diversity in a small population are factors such as the number of individuals, genetic variability within the initial gene pool, reproductive patterns, mutation rates, and selection pressures.
Therefore, even with the absence of LGBTQ+ individuals in the habitat, the underlying principles of genetic diversity and avoiding inbreeding remain the same. The need for a balanced sex ratio and genetic diversity to sustain a healthy population would still apply, regardless of the sexual orientations of the individuals involved.
As such, the accuracy estimate for Dr. Strangelove's theory would likely remain around a 5 or 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, as the key considerations for genetic diversity and population sustainability are primarily linked to genetic factors rather than sexual orientation.
Wouldn't the inclusion of LGTBQ+ individuals affect the overall reproductive rate of the habitants? Are you implying that LGTBQ+ individuals reproduce at the same rate as non-LGTBQ+ individuals?
The inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in a population can indeed affect the overall reproductive rate, as LGBTQ+ individuals may have different reproductive patterns compared to non-LGBTQ+ individuals. LGBTQ+ individuals can and do have children through various means such as adoption, surrogacy, and assisted reproductive technologies. However, it is also true that LGBTQ+ individuals may not reproduce at the same rate or in the same manner as non-LGBTQ+ individuals.
When considering population dynamics and genetic diversity in a small, isolated group like the scenario of individuals in an underground habitation post-catastrophe, the reproductive patterns of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation, would be crucial. The goal would be to ensure that enough offspring are produced to sustain and diversify the population over generations.
In this context, it is important to note that reproductive rates and methods can vary within LGBTQ+ individuals and may need to be factored into population management strategies to maintain genetic diversity. Therefore, the inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals could impact the overall reproductive rate and would be a significant consideration when planning for the long-term survival and genetic health of the population.
Adoption means the LGTBQ+ individual is not contributing any genetic input into the habitat populaton.
Surrogacy may not be possible in the habitat population as the non-LGTBQ+ women are already busy making babies.
Only genetic females capable and willing to carry a baby would be viable for asisted reproductive technologies that would be beneficial in the habitat's limited circumstances.
Given that, what percent of the habitat's population did you assume were LGTBQ+ when estimating an accuracy of 5 or 6 for the original question? And if that % were revised to zero per the additional specification, do you stll maintain it would be an insignificant factor?
You make a valid point that in the specific scenario you describe, LGBTQ+ individuals may have limited avenues for contributing genetic material to the habitat population. Given that adoption, surrogacy, and assisted reproductive technologies may not be viable or available options in the constrained habitat setting, the genetic input from LGBTQ+ individuals could be limited.
In my previous responses, I did not directly mention a specific percentage of LGBTQ+ individuals within the habitat population when estimating the accuracy of Dr. Strangelove's theory. However, considering your clarification on the limitations on genetic contribution by LGBTQ+ individuals in this context, it is evident that the absence of LGBTQ+ individuals in terms of genetic input could impact genetic diversity and the overall reproductive dynamics within the habitat.
Given the revised understanding that LGBTQ+ individuals may not significantly contribute genetic material to the population under the specified constraints of the habitat scenario, the absence of LGBTQ+ individuals would likely have a more significant influence on reproductive rates and genetic diversity.
Therefore, with zero percent of the habitat population being LGBTQ+, this factor would not be insignificant, and it would be important to consider alternative strategies to maintain genetic diversity and ensure the long-term viability of the population within the habitat.
Uglytruth
Fly on the Wall
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 41
- Points
- 98
If LGBTQ+ do not contribute to the gene pool how many generations will it take for them to become 1% of the new population?
Is LGBTQ+ a personal choice or a mental illness?
How many generations of inbreeding before people have effects?
- Messages
- 11,918
- Reaction score
- 2,580
- Points
- 238
I have three more questions:
1 - Is LGBTQ+ a personal choice or a mental illness?
2- If LGBTQ+ do not contribute to the gene pool how many generations will it take for them to become 1% of the new population?
3 - How many generations of inbreeding before people have effects?
1. The question of whether LGBTQ+ identities are a personal choice or a mental illness is a complex and sensitive topic. It's important to understand that LGBTQ+ identities are considered a natural variation of human sexuality and gender expression. Research in psychology, psychiatry, and other fields has shown that sexual orientation and gender identity are not chosen but are intrinsic aspects of who individuals are.
LGBTQ+ individuals have diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and these identities are now widely recognized as part of the spectrum of human diversity. The classification of LGBTQ+ identities as mental illnesses has been debunked by major medical and psychological organizations, and efforts have been made to reduce stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.
2. Without LGBTQ+ individuals contributing to the gene pool, their prevalence in a population would depend on various factors such as migration, cultural shifts, and potential changes in societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals. In a closed population where LGBTQ+ individuals do not reproduce through traditional means, their presence in future generations may significantly diminish over time. Predicting the exact timeline for them to become 1% of the population without direct genetic contributions would be difficult and depend on numerous variables.
3. Inbreeding can lead to negative effects in a population due to an increased risk of genetic disorders and reduced genetic diversity. The number of generations required for inbreeding effects to become noticeable can vary depending on the degree of relatedness between individuals and the presence of harmful recessive genes in the gene pool. In a small, isolated population with ongoing inbreeding, deleterious effects can manifest within a few generations, potentially leading to increased rates of genetic diseases and decreased overall fitness. It is crucial to prevent or minimize inbreeding through strategies that promote genetic diversity and outbreeding in populations.
- Messages
- 11,918
- Reaction score
- 2,580
- Points
- 238
Thanks for your great answers. Have a great day!!
You're welcome! If you have any more questions in the future, feel free to ask. Have a wonderful day!
Cigarlover
Ground Beetle
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 855
- Points
- 213
After the coma event about 72,000 years ago the Earth's population of breeding aged females was down to around 38 IIRC. The genetics did get bottlenecked around that time. I am trying to remember all of this from something I read or watched years ago so I may be off by a few.
Breeding aged would be probably between 12 and 40 or so. My guess is there were more females under the age of 12 that also survived.
My guess is there is more to this than this initial statement. For instance. Although inbreeding can lead to negative effects in a population, it doesn't mean it always does.
Lets assume for a moment that we are breeding for specific characteristics in a population and we aren't afraid to cull the negative results of the breeding program.
1) What would be the goals of the breeding program?
2) Other than retards, what other traits would be acceptable to cull?
If you were to treat a human breeding program as if it were cannabis then inbreeding and backcrossing would be a way to strengthen certain traits.
So,Adam and Eve have 10 children. 3 are fat and ugly so Adam takes them hunting and they get eaten by a tiger. 2 more don't have the mental capacity to learn in the Stone Age so they too are culled. The 5 that are left all start breeding now and have 20 offspring. Of those 20 only 3 are duds and culled.
This is only a tiny example and sample size but the conclusion is that Adam and Eve had a 50% cull rate whereas by culling the bad ones in the beginning the remaining offsprings cull rate was much less. Like a 15% cull rate. So in effect you breed out the bad traits and move forward with the good. I'm sure in a real world scenario you could also determine where those 3 culls came from and stop the breeding from those parents as well. Or you could try different hookups with those parents and see if you get better results.
This obviously gets more complicated the more generations out you go.
If we are being honest and looking back 2-3 generations and asking the grandparents or great grandparents if they would cull a child or two to avoid lgbtqrstuv people in this generation, they probably would. How about asking parents of pedophiles if they would cull their child to stop pedophilia. They probably also would.
Breeding aged would be probably between 12 and 40 or so. My guess is there were more females under the age of 12 that also survived.
Anyone mention this to Hunter and his dad? J/K
My guess is there is more to this than this initial statement. For instance. Although inbreeding can lead to negative effects in a population, it doesn't mean it always does.
Lets assume for a moment that we are breeding for specific characteristics in a population and we aren't afraid to cull the negative results of the breeding program.
1) What would be the goals of the breeding program?
2) Other than retards, what other traits would be acceptable to cull?
If you were to treat a human breeding program as if it were cannabis then inbreeding and backcrossing would be a way to strengthen certain traits.
So,Adam and Eve have 10 children. 3 are fat and ugly so Adam takes them hunting and they get eaten by a tiger. 2 more don't have the mental capacity to learn in the Stone Age so they too are culled. The 5 that are left all start breeding now and have 20 offspring. Of those 20 only 3 are duds and culled.
This is only a tiny example and sample size but the conclusion is that Adam and Eve had a 50% cull rate whereas by culling the bad ones in the beginning the remaining offsprings cull rate was much less. Like a 15% cull rate. So in effect you breed out the bad traits and move forward with the good. I'm sure in a real world scenario you could also determine where those 3 culls came from and stop the breeding from those parents as well. Or you could try different hookups with those parents and see if you get better results.
This obviously gets more complicated the more generations out you go.
If we are being honest and looking back 2-3 generations and asking the grandparents or great grandparents if they would cull a child or two to avoid lgbtqrstuv people in this generation, they probably would. How about asking parents of pedophiles if they would cull their child to stop pedophilia. They probably also would.
Uglytruth
Fly on the Wall
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 41
- Points
- 98
How do small population isolated tribes or island people avoid this problem for thousands of years?
Can you cite any research of small island (or otherwise isolated) populations that support and challenge that assertion?
Research on small island or isolated populations can provide insights into the effects of genetic isolation and inbreeding. Studies have shown both the challenges and potential outcomes of limited genetic diversity in such populations. Here are a few examples of research studies that support and challenge the assertion regarding the effects of inbreeding in isolated populations:
1. **Supporting research**:
- **Research on the Pitcairn Island population**: The population of Pitcairn Island, known for its isolation and small gene pool, has been the subject of genetic studies to understand the impact of inbreeding. Research conducted by the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain found evidence of genetic disorders resulting from generations of isolation and inbreeding among the island's inhabitants.
- **Research on the Amish community**: Studies on the genetic profiles of the Amish population in the United States, characterized by a history of isolation and endogamy, have revealed higher rates of specific genetic disorders due to the limited genetic diversity within the community. This research highlights the risks associated with inbreeding in small, isolated populations.
2. **Challenging research**:
- **Research on the Icelandic population**: The Icelandic population, known for its relative isolation and extensive genealogical records, has been the focus of genetic studies. Research conducted by deCODE Genetics in Iceland has shown that while the population has experienced some level of genetic drift and inbreeding due to historical isolation, the impact has been mitigated by periodic influxes of genetic diversity through migration and admixture events.
- **Research on the Hutterite population**: Studies on the Hutterite community, a small and genetically isolated group in North America, have shown a balance between the risks of inbreeding and the benefits of maintaining a cohesive genetic heritage. Research conducted by the University of Alberta found evidence of both increased prevalence of certain genetic disorders due to inbreeding and the preservation of unique genetic traits within the population.
These examples demonstrate the complex interplay between genetic isolation, inbreeding, genetic diversity, and the resulting health outcomes in small island or isolated populations. While inbreeding can lead to negative effects over time, factors such as migration, genetic admixture, and selective pressures can influence the genetic health and diversity of these populations. Additional research and long-term studies are crucial for understanding the dynamics of isolated populations and developing strategies to mitigate the potential risks associated with genetic isolation.