Re: minimal sustainable human gene pool?


In article <fichdm$90q$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
shoemakerted@xxxxxxxxx <shoemakerted@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've looked, but didn't find answers . . . .

Any ideas about the smallest possible human gene pool that is
sustainable?

I'm probably using the wrong terms, so somebody please correct me.

Here's what I mean:
Imagine that a very small group of humans is genetically isolated from
the rest of humanity for many generations. (European royalty, the
people on Pitcairn Island, and the Amish have provided real examples;
and science fiction writers have given us plenty more scenarios.)
What is the smallest possible size of the starting group which can
reasonably be expected to have genetically healthy descendants after
many generations?

I have heard this called "The Gilligan's Island Problem". I doubt
that would be a good search term, though.

--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006

.