Btw for this reason the 50/500 rule assumes a maximally diverse starting population
-
-
The more consanguinity within the population -- i.e. families etc -- the bigger it needs to be obviously
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
50 is big enough so that it's unlikely any one genetic disease can take over a whole generation if you're careful
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
500 is big enough that, over time, genetic diseases can be bred out of the population w/o sacrificing diversity
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Bc you have enough of a gene pool for mutations and evolution to occur
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @pallasinine
Hm, that makes part of my plot harder to work with
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @pallasinine
It's not *impossible* for a smaller group to survive for a certain amount of time
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Just less likely, but all evolution is a crapshoot
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
50/500 rule is based on assumption of some deleterious genes (genetic load) in every organism + a varied/challenging environment
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Thus requiring natural variation/evolution for viability
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Cut down on those factors and you have more leeway, like if humans are "domesticated" in a controlled environment
-
-
And if founding population has "optimized" genes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Like how all pet Syrian hamsters in the Western world were descended from a single litter
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.