How many people are needed to avoid inbreeding in a population?

There is a surprising amount of genetic diversity in any random individual (which is why definitions of "race" are so elusive). Any couple is therefore sufficient in principle

Attached: D25B20F2-0881-4116-86D4-764C574320FF.jpg (740x985, 92K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
newscientist.com/article/dn1936-magic-number-for-space-pioneers-calculated/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

A population of roughly 400 is all you need in the case where you don't control breeding. With strict record keeping and organized breeding you can drop that to maybe 250.
This we know because Cheetahs have a common genetic defect caused by historical inbreeding, all living Cheetahs today share roughly 350 ancestors who were the entire population of Cheetahs around 12000 years ago.

500 if you coordinate it and have access to who goes with who, but 50,000 for a general population. The problem is people tend to stay in the area, give people passports or whatever, tell them to fuck off to the other side of the country, and the problem solves itself.

The idea of importing niggers to avoid inbreeding was always just another lie used to justify an invasion.

Attached: 1511296104944.jpg (656x822, 196K)

the fuck is inbreeding
people lived in small tribes of 20 !!! people
before agriculture and nothing fucking happened
Inbreeding is a fucking myth.
people degenerate only by fucking other degenerates.
fucking moron !

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
This is what you are looking for

To my understanding, some gene alleles are "bad" and having a "better" copy around often masks the bad one. If two people both with a "bad" allele in their genetic code mate, they might both pass on their set of bad alleles, thus it will be expressed in the offspring.

Most "bad" alleles are going to be mask-able and recessive. Because if a gene for a creatures eyes melting out of their face is dominant in a species for example, it's going to die out fairly quickly in contrast to if it's recessive. Even recessive alleles that are bad are likely going to become rare, seeing how they put a damper on the number of successful offspring the carriers of said trait could possibly produce, but still.

Genetics is complex as hell. There's likely all sorts of places in a genetic code and "bad" fruit salad combinations of genes and alleles where things can go less than ideally. These aren't difficult things to at least apprehend in concept.

So actually, to say incest is okay isn't the smart statement. You're increasing your likelihood of creating an offspring with a bad combination of genes. Unless you truly think you're some very hot shit genetically. Like statistically extremely unlikely hot shit genetically. That nothing in you combined a certain way, could go wrong.

35k or something like that.
Preferably 20k women to 15k men.

There is tricks to tweak it, by increasing females of different genetics you can get by with less males. Each male producing 10+ children to different mothers. Selective breeding afterwards would be needed for the following 2-3 generations. This will allow new Genetic mixtures to be produced. After that, population should stabilize.

Google founder's effect fag.

Around 160 people.
newscientist.com/article/dn1936-magic-number-for-space-pioneers-calculated/

Checked. High quality post. The only instance where incest can result in a healthier population is when the birthrate is very very high and the pressure from natural selection is also very high. In other words: you and your sister have tons of inbred kids and most of them die, but the ones that do survive have fewer of the "bad" recessive alleles than you or your sister.

Drumpf is one of the last living cheetos

What's about ashkenazi jewess from your pic, OP. Do you sugesting, we have to mate with fucking jews, to avoid inbreeding?
Just fuck off, dirty jew. You will newer be white.

>4,169 individuals
I want to believe.

Our gene pool at some point was comprised of 16 females and 7 males at the lowest point. Barring statistically insignificant Down Syndrome cases that appear annually, this hasn't changed much since Homo Sapiens beat down the last set of niggers.

However, Homo Autista will soon replace Sapiens, driven by its Beta male, White Monster energy drink, and God Emporer complex

Kek. Of course the Finn knows.

If that is inbred dunno wtf I am.

Attached: 740full-tove-agren.jpg (740x987, 130K)

48 is all you need, niggers

>memeflag
>avoided answering the question, like a kike would

Ashkenazi Jews to my understanding are noticed to have a disproportionately high prevalence of genetic disorders. So they're a very good example to point to for the topic. Go google ashkenazi genetic disorders. You'll be able to make a list longer than your arm of genetic maladies they suffer from in 5 minutes, off the first page of results. The rates of them having any of these particular diseases are ridiculous. You can also clearly see they've put a lot of shekels into finding out this stuff.

I'd been doing just some personal research and ran across some of this realm of information a few weeks back. This is my conclusion, though unrelated to the topic of this thread: Jews are honestly quite race realist when they drop the whole leftist "I'm a noble race equality Heb" mask, and they're also very racial supremacist and of an extremely high opinion of themselves. They're well mapped their own Jew genetic code. They know what a Jew and what not a Jew is, thoroughly. All lines up the usual Jow Forums mindset toward Jews, to be honest about it. But that's an aside. Ashkenazi Jews have lots of genetic diseases thus are fine to point toward on this topic.

Like s group of 4 people