Re: Inbreeding in Animals
Quote:
All non-migratory animals inbreed... snakes are non-migratory
I agree that that statement is a bit of an oversimplification. It is more correct to say that all non-migratory animals have the potential to inbreed. And personally, I would contend that even migratory animal have that same potential to inbreed because migration does not necessarily equal out-crossing because most herds/flocks/whatever tend to migrate as a whole and not scatter to the winds. Also, you have to consider that just because an animal is not migratory does not mean it does not travel. An animal may not migrate but it does not necessarily have to stay in a defined "territory", it can simply start moving once it is born and bumble along from point A to point B to point C to point D etc and never actually pass the same way twice...
Quote:
The way that I see, is that the genomes, are a more simplified genome. Its not as complex like said human.
Lets call them letters for a second....
If a human genome has A B C D E F & G
And snake genome has A B C
You have less of a chance to get a genetic defect, because of the simplicity.
Actually there are a few flawed assumptions there.
First is that snakes, because they are further down the evolutionary ladder than us, are necessarily "simple" in a genetic sense. Amoeba are some of the simplest life out there and they are also some of the most genetically diverse. There are frogs with 2n = 70 and chickens are 2n =76 (humans are 2n = 46 in case you were wondering.) IDK what BPs have but I know a few snakes have been logged @ 2n = 36 so they are probably not that far from us in terms of chromosome count. Which, in and of itself could also mean next to nothing because what you would need for a true comparison is the total base count of the genome. The humane genome is ~3 megabases. IDK if anyone has determined the size of any snakes genome so... Anyways, point of all this rambling being that snakes may not be as "simple" as you are making them out to be.
Second, an organism with a simpler genome (i.e. less total DNA) would be more prone to suffering from inbreeding because you are more likely to concentrate a non-desirable trait. Basically the more material you have to work with the more likely you are to have a bit of flexibility.
Quote:
We see issues with small human gene pools if a destructive trait gets concentrated.
This statement actually hits the nail on the head though it does not have to be humans we are talking about. If you have a small pool there is a greater likelihood you will amplify the incidence of any detrimental trait because you are essentially purifying for its presence. If you can guarantee you are starting with a population that is totally free of any and all possible defects then inbreeding should be no problem. However it is nearly impossible to guarantee that first qualifier.
There is also an interesting proposal that inbreeding can be a good thing. It is rather counter intuitive but the argument is that by inbreeding you purify for the defect which then results in a collapse of the population due to accumulation of the defect. Survivors of the collapse are more likely to not carry the detrimental gene and so pass through a bottleneck and re-establish the population. Go through the cycle a few times and you weed out all the defective genes... This calls for an absolutely enclosed system and I do not advocate breeders try this but it is an interesting idea to wrap your mind around...
