Cheetah births at Smithsonian research center grab biologists' attention

[shortylickens]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122804133.html

My thoughts:

:awe:

Also,
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c....0/12/28/AR2010122803928_mobile.xml&cid=578815

Why is the mobile link a hell of a lot longer?

 

[ElFenix]

per the tour guide at the wilds in ohio, which has a cheetah, cheetahs are in a severe evolutionary bottleneck. apparently practically all of them are as closely related as first cousins. and it is very difficult to get them to mate as they are picky. you can't just put a male and a female in a pen and expect them to go at it.


so:

:awe:

 

[SsupernovaE]

Is there a way to increase genetic diversity in such a bottlenecked species as the cheetah by selective breeding?

 

[zephyrprime]

I think the problem with species like the cheetah that don't breed in captivity well is that we are not allowing them to exhibit attractive traits to their partner. We are assuming that all animals are either always eager to sex it up, are turned on by physical appearance, or become shy in captivity. I do not think this is the case. I think there are many animals that simply do not feel attraction for members of the opposite sex unless certain events happen. For example, maybe cheetahs only feel attraction for other cheetahs when they see the other cheetah skillfully catch some dinner. In captivity, this never happens because the animals are fed. Maybe panda have some sort of special criteria too which they don't get to show off in captive environments which would explain why they are so difficult to breed in captivity.

 

[ElFenix]

Is there a way to increase genetic diversity in such a bottlenecked species as the cheetah by selective breeding?

bottlenecks can be cured but it takes hundreds and thousands of generations. humans were bottlenecked ~2,000 generations ago. but genetics are a pretty interesting thing. realistic computer models suggest that the most recent common ancestor for all humans lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. that is, everyone alive on earth today is an ancestor of someone who lived not that many years ago and only a relative few generations ago

 

[manimal]

bottlenecks can be cured but it takes hundreds and thousands of generations. humans were bottlenecked ~2,000 generations ago. but genetics are a pretty interesting thing. realistic computer models suggest that the most recent common ancestor for all humans lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. that is, everyone alive on earth today is an ancestor of someone who lived not that many years ago and only a relative few generations ago

that means I am related to William Shatner!!

 

[piasabird]

Yes it is possible to vary genetic populations. I have seen a show or two where captive cats are sometimes moved between reserves to find a mate. This is one way to vary the genetic pool available. I kind of wonder if these animals hunt in any of these reserves. I have been to the zoo in Kansas City and it is more like an African environment with open grazeland.

I wonder if Chetah's like Deer?

 

[wirelessenabled]

bottlenecks can be cured but it takes hundreds and thousands of generations. humans were bottlenecked ~2,000 generations ago. but genetics are a pretty interesting thing. realistic computer models suggest that the most recent common ancestor for all humans lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. that is, everyone alive on earth today is an ancestor of someone who lived not that many years ago and only a relative few generations ago

Link?

Is it a religious source?

Intelligent Design?

 

[dawp]

Link?

Is it a religious source?

Intelligent Design?

google is your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Humans

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...-v4&aql=&oq=human+bottle&gs_rfai=&safe=active

 

[Throckmorton]

bottlenecks can be cured but it takes hundreds and thousands of generations. humans were bottlenecked ~2,000 generations ago. but genetics are a pretty interesting thing. realistic computer models suggest that the most recent common ancestor for all humans lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. that is, everyone alive on earth today is an ancestor of someone who lived not that many years ago and only a relative few generations ago

3000 years is impossible. At that point the populations of humans were separated enough that they looked like they do now.... in other words Europeans were already white, Africans were already black, Asians were already Asian, etc.

Asians migrated to North America at least 17k years ago.

 

[ElFenix]

3000 years is impossible. At that point the populations of humans were separated enough that they looked like they do now.... in other words Europeans were already white, Africans were already black, Asians were already Asian, etc.

Asians migrated to North America at least 17k years ago.

and there has been no intermixing of populations since then, not at all

 

[BudAshes]

bottlenecks can be cured but it takes hundreds and thousands of generations. humans were bottlenecked ~2,000 generations ago. but genetics are a pretty interesting thing. realistic computer models suggest that the most recent common ancestor for all humans lived as recently as 3,000 years ago. that is, everyone alive on earth today is an ancestor of someone who lived not that many years ago and only a relative few generations ago

Maybe you mean 30k years?

 

[FaaR]

realistic computer models suggest that the most recent common ancestor for all humans lived as recently as 3,000 years ago.

...Except, recorded (written) human history stretches far further back than that, and oher sources (archaeological, and so on) goes much further still.

So, is that REALLY a realistic model when it's so obviously totally erroneous?

 

[shortylickens]

...Except, recorded (written) human history stretches far further back than that, and oher sources (archaeological, and so on) goes much further still.

So, is that REALLY a realistic model when it's so obviously totally erroneous?

Now read was he's saying, and think about it. He didnt say modern humans started 3000 years ago.
He said our most recent ancestor was still hopping around 3000 years ago, which is possible.
When a new species pops up the old one does magically disappear. We learned this in BIO 101 last semester (a surprising amount of population study was in that class).

 

[ElFenix]

...Except, recorded (written) human history stretches far further back than that, and oher sources (archaeological, and so on) goes much further still.

So, is that REALLY a realistic model when it's so obviously totally erroneous?

well that would be a liberal-realistic model. a consensus seems to have formed around the most recent common ancestor living just 5,000 years ago.

think about it: every child requires 2 parents. go back 1000 years and there were 250 to 300 million people alive. how many generations back is that? 30? maybe 40? 30 generations includes over a billion ancestor nodes. 40 generations is over a trillion ancestor nodes. obviously, your family tree gets exponentially larger in terms of great great great great (etc.) grandparents, while the population of the earth keeps getting smaller. the same people start being in multiple lineages in your family tree. now trace that tree out for everyone alive, and how far back do you have to go until someone is in everyone's tree?

obviously you'd have to go further back than if we were just a homogenous population that had been in perfect contact with everyone else for the whole of history. but the researchers seem to think that european DNA has gotten just about everywhere by now.