Sufficient humans to repopulate?

I guess it might help if we had a single pregnant female carrying identical twins.

EDIT: I meant of course identical twins of different sexes, if that is possible.
Last edited:
was that a balanced equation? i hope you have references to back it up and review articles tracing the mathmatical work leading up to this equation. also, show me a complete proof. can i plug this into a graphic imaging system?

you're too ignorant to understand the concept, but this is one of the basic tenets of evolutionary biology and the foundation of geology and humankind's first steps into modern science, i.e. the first inklings of the age of the earth
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
:rolleyes: obviously genetics isn't either.

tell me how a single pregnant female can repopulate a entire species? Don’t tell me: her son going to mate with her or no to twin a male and female? Unfortunately this kind of inbreeding would most likely result in still-born or infertile children after 2-3 generations.

the thing is of course, that scientists make inbred lines all the time. And they thrive in the lab. The lines do not perish after 2-3 generations. They thrive for decades and decades. Would something similar then be possible for humans? Is there any theoretical hindrance to this notion, or is it just because we were taught that inbreeding is bad and will weaken the spine, similar to masturbating.
If I summarize the matter then Paulsamual has good reason to believe that it is possible to create a stable population through inbreeding and this notion hasn't really been refuted anywhere here.

And we may continue to attack his 'aggresive' style in this case, but this aggressive stance might be induced by other people's shameless intrusion into his subject, without acknowledging that they could be wrong, or even contemplating that they might be wrong.

But I am not really an expert on this subject and I find it difficult to judge, but I do know that I had similar experiences in this forum and that it is difficult to remain 'cool' in these cases. Especially because most sciforumers can't really know who they can trust or not. And they will just trust the person they have seen around most, or like.

Is this about being right. Not really, it is about intrusion. Someone comes into you backyard and starts throwing in the windows of your house.

anyway...i said what I wanted to say...
So I take it 1 female is enough. What would cause enbreeding kids to not survive? Is it some DNA that's mutated but we require later in life which is the source of the problem? I just can't comprehen why two similar DNA can't repopulate and diverge over time.
The problem is that everyone carries recessive traits (aka Gene that don't work right or well and are covered over by dominate ones) when inbreeding there is a much higher chance making children with homozygous recessive genotype, there are many recessives that are lethal or greatly debilitating but in a population with a good gene pool the chances of making homozygous recessive in one of those lethal traits is very low.

you are right! it can happen although there are potential problems.

recessive traits are not necessarily deleterious! wellcooked is wrong when he defines recessive traits as 'genes that don't work well.'

the problem with inbreeding is called inbreeding depression, which is a decrease in fecundity due to inbreeding (it merely means a female is less reproductively successful over her lifetime due solely to inbreeding). the reason for inbreeding depression is expression of deleterious recessive traits. this happens at a low rate. the rate and the amount of inbreeding depression is entirely dependent on the genetic load of the population. But with a small AND inbred population, chances are increased that, merely by chance recombination of traits, that a whole breeding season is unsuccessful, and over time, the population can go extinct.

it is NOT that inbred children don't survive, most survive fine, but even one less successful offspring, due solely to inbreeding, is measurable and called inbreeding depression.

ergo, wellcooked is WRONG when he says that it can't happen
They don't work in competition to dominate traits. Again I did not say it can't happen I said it was unlikely to happen. paulsamuel has a ego problem Specialist, you see his life is not good enough for him so he has to come here to push people around, he will interpret any vague or with exception statement as wrong so that he can show-off, he will also not respect any neutral answer such as mine where I say it unlikely to be successful he interprets that as it will never happen so that he can hammer me on his own Straw Man fallacy… it pathetic really.

there is no strawman. there's a real target, you!

when you mislead, misinform or lie, i will expose you.

you said, "They don't work in competition to dominate traits."

that's, literally, nonsense.

stop whining about being picked on, use your intellect, stop spewing crap and misleading people who really want to learn something, dumbass!
Recessive traits are any traits that only function when an associated dominant trait is not present. Red hair is a recessive trait. In fact it popped up several times in human history due to moderate amounts of inbreeding.

Do you know what a strawmen is? Lets clarify that first:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You have been claiming that I’m wrong for saying a single pregnant female cannot beget a species, I never said that.

In reality the recessive trait never works or does not works as a efficiently as a dominate this is way the trait get cover over. White and red rose is a good example: a white rose has 2 recessive versions of the red rose pigment gene or gene related in that pigments production, when a recessive and dominate are together in a heterozygous pair the Rose appears pinks because its only producing half the pigment a double dominate homozygous would. There are also stages of recessives and dominates and many exceptions to the dominate/recessive rule.

you don't even know what recessive means.

recessive genes are not expressed except in the homozygous state

the rose example is partial dominance or co-dominance

again you're misinforming, misleading and/or outright lying

you really ought to know what you're talking about before you open your mouth, dumbass
recessive genes are not expressed except in the homozygous state

Did I not already state that, oh wait that right you said that was wrong, strange seeing you back down on that.

again you don't take vague or a lack of terminology on my part as being anyway correct which is a lie on yours.
I said: "They don't work in competition to dominate traits"

you said: "recessive genes are not expressed except in the homozygous state "
which means that in a heterozygous paring by your logic they are not expressed which means that the recessive trait does not appear in the presence of the dominate, perhaps my laymen terms are to beyond you, which is weird since most people have problems with words with many syllables not the other way around. Face it your nit-picking on anything I say to try to prove me wrong.

I would expect more from you, you don't find his behavior wrong or offensive in anyway?
no, he is right...he might not be very nice, but I am not so nice either.

but you never know when to quit either and say that maybe you are wrong. I also find that offensive as you may have noticed in the past.

nobody is perfect here.