4 ms·
One DNA sample isn’t enough. You need dozens or more to repopulate a species. If you just had one or two, you would have to rely on inbreeding to repopulate whi
by plank_time 5y ago
One DNA sample isn’t enough. You need dozens or more to repopulate a species. If you just had one or two, you would have to rely on inbreeding to repopulate which would create too many bad genetic problems from bad genes.
- _Microft 5y agoEven hundreds or thousand of samples of a species would most likely still be an enormous genetic bottleneck. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
- dredmorbius 5y agoThere are numerous vertebrate species with only a few thousand (or fewer) extant members. Many have been greatly reduced over the 20th century, some have been on a long decline before that. Some have been small / relict / outlier populations for much or all of human history. Whether this means the bottleneck hypothesis is overstated, or that we're looking at a tremendous number of bottlenecks, isn't clear.
- bpodgursky 5y agoThe reproductive strategy of a species also matters. Species that produce hundreds or thousands of young (and then winnow down to the survivors) are better at quickly "breeding out" genetic flaws (if 50% of the young die, it's not a big deal), and have an easier time recovering from population bottlenecks. Vs large mammals where raising one genetically-hobbled offspring (who then dies, or fails to reproduce) is a huge loss to the potential of the species.
- dredmorbius 5y agor/K selection theory, for the interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
- fouc 5y agoAll that really means is that the offspring with bad genes might die sooner, but if population growth keeps up then eventually there'll be enough variety.