Again, that is not what inbreeding does. As a matter of fact, it is the exact fucking opposite of what inbreeding does.yut wrote:Antero wrote:I mean, seriously, that's why cheetahs are doomed to extinction - because their gene pool is more like a gene puddle, thanks to some long-ago disease.
So now they just get fucked-up-er.
---
Mutations caused by inbreeding aren't mutations so much as they are the emergence of awful recessive traits. That's why royal families have hemophillia.
Well, that and they are hunted...
This is short sighted though... In 20 generations, you will have Cheetas with completely different genotypes. In the short run, of a few generations, inbreeding is bad. I am not a proponent of inbreeding, but simply stating the fact that it is a mechanism to eventually force genetic diversity from a limited gene pool.
Inbreeding reduces genetic diversity, because (duh) you have less genes to work with. The mutations caused by inbreeding are not the expression of new genotypes, but rather the expression of negative traits from recessive genes. The reason they stack up so quickly in inbred populations is because they are more likely to match up and, as a result, less likely to go unexpressed.
In 20 generations, we will not have any cheetahs, genotype regardless. Constant inbreeding over many generations has rendered them highly vulnerable to disease and created a high infant mortality rate, so they're kinda fucked. This is, in general, a significant hazard with endangered species, as they reach a point where the total gene pool is small enough that inbreeding, and the problems that follow, will drive them to extinction even if we can increase their numbers.
Do your research.
