Clear something up for /a/ brainlets, Veeky Forums. Could you save humanity from extinction with just 6 people...

No.

Look up the 50/500 rule. You need approximately 50 people for the population to not die out from inbreeding, and while you might be able to fudge 45 or even 40, there's no fucking way you can do it with just 6. (The 500 is for the ability to survive without genetic drift doing whatever the fuck it wants to the genome. With less than that the population's probably going to develop some really weird traits as a consequence of random chance.)

What's the percentage chance of you winning a language translator-slate^OFF with Simon Troy Cosgrove?

1^ON, Wizard's Hat Is Conical.
//
什麼是你贏得了語言翻譯,石板^ OFF西蒙特洛伊科斯格羅夫的百分比機會?

1 ^ ON,巫師帽是圓錐形的。

I can do anything.

Who're you?

With our current medical tech? Nah, not nearly enough genetic diversity, inbreeding would kill the population off in a short couple of generations. That's assuming you don't end up with fertility problems, death in childbirth etc

Maybe in the quite distant future, with gene editing or something like that, but that's just scifi atm tbqh

And my question does beg you to answer it honestly, otherwise what's the point of living?
//
あなたは私に迷惑から消えないなら、私はすぐにやってシモンくん雅はどこか他の場所のだろうか

Inbreeding is only bad if it's between filthy hobos, many animals have gotten new variants from inbreeding.
Strong genes will be passed down and recessive genes will be phased out.

>Strong genes will be passed down and recessive genes will be phased out.
Would that happen to be how you were born, user?

>Strong genes will be passed down and recessive genes will be phased out.
You're the living proof that this is wrong.

>Strong genes will be passed down and recessive genes will be phased out.
Wrong. You have the same genes as every other human, what differs are the alleles
And if an allele is recessive is does not mean it's bad or it will die out, it just means that it will not be active if you have another allele of the same gene which is not recessive (since you have 2 copies of each gene)

There is the chance that someone could unstone and then add to the diversity of the genetics

>t. filthy hobos

Good but doesn't mean inbreeding is bad.
The dominant genes will remain dominant since the individuals are healthy and have strong genes.

>doesn't mean inbreeding is bad
>The dominant genes will remain dominant since the individuals are healthy and have strong genes
Yeah, that's why purebred pugs are such healthy and strong creatures.

Actually, it's worse than that. Their connective tissues tend to be weak and their malformed skulls put pressure on the eyes, so it's possible for their eyes to bust out of their head if they get hit by a door or something.

This actually isn't the case. There are many retroviral acting elements in our own genome, called SINEs and LINEs, the first being the Short, the second being the Long, that are overall classified as transposons.

A transposon is a genetic element that encodes for a protein that will copy it, take that copy, and then cut randomly in the genome and insert a copy of itself. The rate of it occurring, on the genetic scale, is kind of slow for a single generation. However, it's estimated that over 50% of our DNA is either transposon, or remnants of transposable elements that have mutated over time.

The danger is that one of these transposons will get cut into the middle of a coding sequence of a gene that we already have- because if it does, then that gene is effectively broken. This means that genes that control for body structure, or chemical production, or cell specialization could all get broken. However the vast majority of these kinds of genes are recessive, and the reason we have 2 copies of each gene is such that an element like this won't be detrimental. After all, let's say you get a transposon sliding into a copy of a gene that controls for proper brain development- you have 1 broken and 1 working copy, but you only need 1 working copy for normal growth, so everything is fine. On top of this, since it mutated in your father/mother's gamete, the chances that anyone else on the planet has this exact mutation is low, so getting 2 broken copies of the gene by reproducing with someone is almost impossible. Unless of course they're related to you- then, all of the recessive genes that could get broken by transposons could become homozygous, and you'll get a lot of fucked up phenotypes- I gave an example concerning a single gene, but there's the thought of many genes being broken all at once, and the very real possibility that it could become fixed. A person with the allele won't be any less fit than without, unless it's homozygous, so it'll remain.

Pugs weren't bred to be healthy, they were bred to be ugly little deformed pricks as a pastime for wealthy snobs.

You'd have to fuck alot to even have the slightest chance of surviving 100 years. Basically, You'd be trying reproduce faster than the genetic defects could kill everyone off.

Sure.
It's possible to do it naturally, all you need to do is have the men breed their daughters to maximize diversity.
With the advent of artificial wombs, it's possible to revive humanity if you have a single man and a single egg. All you need is a single x23 clone, and you suddenly have all the eggs you will need.
From there you make N number of x23 clones a year. Once they hit puberty, you start to breed with them and stop x23'ing.

// Can anyone better at biology tell me if DNA void human and non-human egg cells are interchangeable?