How to make an animal which can only breed for a certain number of generations?












13












$begingroup$


What would be the best way in which to genetically modify (or create through some other method) an animal which breeds normally for a certain number (50?) of generations before becoming sterile? Generations 1-49 would be normal, but generation 50 should be unable to breed.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Can individuals of one generation interbreed with individuals of the previous generation(s)? What generation would the offspring of such a breeding be counted as? How long even is a generation, since they're presumably not all breeding at the same time?
    $endgroup$
    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 22 at 16:38










  • $begingroup$
    1. Yes 2. Higher of 2 generations + 1 3. Generation 1 = first cohort. Generation 2 = children of first cohort. Etc.
    $endgroup$
    – Richard Smith
    Apr 23 at 21:17
















13












$begingroup$


What would be the best way in which to genetically modify (or create through some other method) an animal which breeds normally for a certain number (50?) of generations before becoming sterile? Generations 1-49 would be normal, but generation 50 should be unable to breed.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Can individuals of one generation interbreed with individuals of the previous generation(s)? What generation would the offspring of such a breeding be counted as? How long even is a generation, since they're presumably not all breeding at the same time?
    $endgroup$
    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 22 at 16:38










  • $begingroup$
    1. Yes 2. Higher of 2 generations + 1 3. Generation 1 = first cohort. Generation 2 = children of first cohort. Etc.
    $endgroup$
    – Richard Smith
    Apr 23 at 21:17














13












13








13


4



$begingroup$


What would be the best way in which to genetically modify (or create through some other method) an animal which breeds normally for a certain number (50?) of generations before becoming sterile? Generations 1-49 would be normal, but generation 50 should be unable to breed.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




What would be the best way in which to genetically modify (or create through some other method) an animal which breeds normally for a certain number (50?) of generations before becoming sterile? Generations 1-49 would be normal, but generation 50 should be unable to breed.







science-based biology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 21 at 8:17









Brythan

21.9k84388




21.9k84388










asked Apr 21 at 4:41









Richard SmithRichard Smith

799313




799313








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Can individuals of one generation interbreed with individuals of the previous generation(s)? What generation would the offspring of such a breeding be counted as? How long even is a generation, since they're presumably not all breeding at the same time?
    $endgroup$
    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 22 at 16:38










  • $begingroup$
    1. Yes 2. Higher of 2 generations + 1 3. Generation 1 = first cohort. Generation 2 = children of first cohort. Etc.
    $endgroup$
    – Richard Smith
    Apr 23 at 21:17














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Can individuals of one generation interbreed with individuals of the previous generation(s)? What generation would the offspring of such a breeding be counted as? How long even is a generation, since they're presumably not all breeding at the same time?
    $endgroup$
    – Darrel Hoffman
    Apr 22 at 16:38










  • $begingroup$
    1. Yes 2. Higher of 2 generations + 1 3. Generation 1 = first cohort. Generation 2 = children of first cohort. Etc.
    $endgroup$
    – Richard Smith
    Apr 23 at 21:17








2




2




$begingroup$
Can individuals of one generation interbreed with individuals of the previous generation(s)? What generation would the offspring of such a breeding be counted as? How long even is a generation, since they're presumably not all breeding at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Apr 22 at 16:38




$begingroup$
Can individuals of one generation interbreed with individuals of the previous generation(s)? What generation would the offspring of such a breeding be counted as? How long even is a generation, since they're presumably not all breeding at the same time?
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Apr 22 at 16:38












$begingroup$
1. Yes 2. Higher of 2 generations + 1 3. Generation 1 = first cohort. Generation 2 = children of first cohort. Etc.
$endgroup$
– Richard Smith
Apr 23 at 21:17




$begingroup$
1. Yes 2. Higher of 2 generations + 1 3. Generation 1 = first cohort. Generation 2 = children of first cohort. Etc.
$endgroup$
– Richard Smith
Apr 23 at 21:17










13 Answers
13






active

oldest

votes


















24












$begingroup$

I think you'd have to mess with telomere length. I'm not sure exactly how you would do this and have it pass down to their offspring, but if the species loses a specific amount of telomere length per generation, eventually things stop working. (This might result in severe medical problems in the last few generations.)



Note that within 50 generations there's a chance that this change mutates away, and the larger the number of offspring, the more likely one of them rolls the dice just right. Have a backup plan. (But then that's a problem with almost anything biological.)



Alternate: make them extremely susceptible to a certain chemical, not naturally found in the environment. Release the chemical once generation 50 rolls around. (Does require you to stick around.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Each time a cell divides (mitosis), the telomeres aren't fully copied. Telemores are a repeating set of non-encoding codons, that protect the end of DNA from damage. During the meiosis stage of gametogenesis (production of sperm and eggs) the gamete actives "Telomerase reverse transcriptase" to regenerate the telomeres. There are conditions which this stops happening. If this happens, then eventually the genes are the ends of the DNA will fail to be copied correctly, which will lead to the death of all offspring.
    $endgroup$
    – CSM
    Apr 21 at 9:13








  • 15




    $begingroup$
    Doing the inverse of your chemical process might make more sense: give the initial population a high dose of some chemical that decays over time (maybe a radioisotope?) and make a high concentration essential for reproduction. If it transmits via the placenta in pregnancy or via breastfeeding you can tune the half life/transmission ratio to drop past some critical threshold at generation X. No need for you to stick around.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    Apr 21 at 10:18










  • $begingroup$
    pluto-genesis O_o @JoeBloggs
    $endgroup$
    – GameDeveloper
    Apr 21 at 15:14








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @JoeBloggs Now that I think about it, having creatures depend on an artificial chemical is common when dealing with things you don't want escaping into the wild. It's usually placed in the environment, though. This has the benefit that it's easier to set up. Just provide enough of the chemical for 50 generations, then leave. You don't need to mess around with passing the chemical around or half-lives or anything, just a finite amount of the chemical, and a population that depends on it.
    $endgroup$
    – user3757614
    Apr 21 at 19:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yeah, that works too. Especially if consumption of the thing is highly regulated. Just got to watch out that The chemical confers some benefit, or evolution might sidestep your control mechanism. After all, Life finds a way.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    Apr 21 at 20:06



















8












$begingroup$

Make fifty generations of eggs (or whatever). Put them in incubators that only trigger the hatching criteria at the appropriate time. This will be much easier to manage than the biological alternative.



Biologically, what you would do is change the gene copying mechanism to remove a sequence from the DNA. For the first fifty generations, it removes a meaningless sequence inserted for that purpose. On the fifty-first generation, it removes something important. It's also possible that it might remove something reproduction related in the fiftieth generation so that it's sterile.



The problem with the biological alternative is that it will tend to have a high failure rate. Think of the things that can go wrong:




  1. It might start at the wrong place and end early.

  2. It might continue too long, removing two sequences (or more) instead of one.

  3. It might fail, allowing the animal to keep breeding perpetually.

  4. It might start at the wrong place and introduce a problematic mutation in that generation.


And variants of those.



Another easier alternative would be to make the animals long-lived. Then you could have just one sterile generation that lives for fifty normal generations.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    7












    $begingroup$

    `Grandchildless' gene in the fruit fly (Drosophila Melanogaster) exists. It increases the fly's average number of offspring, but the offspring are sterile. You may look into whether the gene has been modified for a larger number of generations.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      It can't it works by producing offspring with no genitalia.
      $endgroup$
      – John
      Apr 22 at 0:18






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @John it might be able to if it requires more than one gene. What if it requires 100 genes, and each starting creature has only one, and they're all recessive? This should mean it's impossible to have it work on any individual animal before generation 50.
      $endgroup$
      – Ryan_L
      Apr 22 at 4:48










    • $begingroup$
      If it requires more than one gene than a mutation to any one of those genes can prevent it from working. heck if one creature dies it doesn't work.
      $endgroup$
      – John
      Apr 22 at 13:50



















    6












    $begingroup$

    If it's OK that not exact but expected number of generations is limited then you could add mutation which makes child sterile. With 10% for such mutation in single generation you get about 0.5% that 51th generation will exists.

    The drawback you have decreasing population during whole period.



    UPDATE



    It works only for animals that grow up few childs in a moment. Most big enough animals select this strategy. If your animal produces numerous offspring (like mouse or fish) then we should change mutation: It should reduce every next generation by 10%. And somehow you need to make sure it will appear in each generation.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I think this only works if it's a specific individual that reproduces asexually. This is equivalent to killing off 10% of each generation before they reproduce, and there are a great many species that do just fine with 90%+ of each generation dying before reproducing. This also creates a strong natural selection pressure to remove this mutation.
      $endgroup$
      – user3757614
      Apr 21 at 6:07










    • $begingroup$
      @user3757614 I suggest very specific mutation: it should always provoke 10% of children to be sterile, so selection won't help. Since many species produce lot offsprings, big animals tend to grow only few children. I update answer to be more clear.
      $endgroup$
      – ADS
      Apr 21 at 18:51










    • $begingroup$
      the problem is such a gene can mutate, and there is no way to get precision percentages with genes. Recombination is a randomizing aspect that evolve to specifically help eliminate linkages like this.
      $endgroup$
      – John
      Apr 22 at 14:00



















    5












    $begingroup$

    You can't do it reliably.



    If it can breed for multiple generations it can evolve and change whatever you did to it. More importantly if it can breed for multiple generations it already has everything it needs to keep replicating forever so such a mutation is easy. The best you can do is limit their diversity so detrimental genes kill off most of each generation and does not leave enough diversity to survive catastrophic events, but that is not going to be precise or 100% reliable.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$





















      4












      $begingroup$

      Make part of the childbearing process rely upon a specific material, such as a mineral or a chemical, passed down from mother to children (maybe while the child is developing in the womb). There is only a certain amount that is necessary, and they start out with far more than they all need, but it is non-replenishable and slowly degrades or is lost. Eventually, around the 50th generation (or whatever other point you wish, just adjust the variables) there won't be enough to catalyze a successful pregnancy, and any pregnancies will fail.



      The weakness of this is threefold: one, it's imprecise: if a significant number of the breeding population dies, then the end may come that much faster (as the catalyst now has much less to go around). It's also somewhat reliant upon guesswork, for some individuals may run out faster than others, leading to a few stragglers still having successful pregnancies in the 51st generation, or a sudden lack of viable births in the 49th, etc. Finally, there's the lesson we learned from Jurassic Park—life finds a way. It's entirely possible that (if this race is sapient and has access to science of a sufficient level) they may diagnose this issue and correct it via synthesis of the catalyst, or at least delay their extinction. But I think all these are easily overcomable with a bit of handwaving or proper setup of the scenario.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$





















        3












        $begingroup$

        The encoding would need to be in the individuals phenotype and control the expression of individuals gametes on entering sexual maturity.



        That way when two generational limited animals mate and their offspring carry their genomes, the “decrement to sterility” could be part of the genetic instructions that generate the animals eggs or sperm.



        And with each generation, barring mutation, the number of generations that genome could sire would be one less than the previous generation.



        There might be tricks to work around the ‘decrement to sterility’ genetic encoding. Take the case were a 1st generation male impregnates a 4th generation female. The offsprings genotype would contain two different expressions of the generational limit. If the trait is dominant, then the child would be 2nd generation, but if it was recessive the child would be 5th generation.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$





















          3












          $begingroup$

          The telomere approach of user3757614's approach is close but it ticks as the creature grows so it won't be reliable.



          Thus lets take a slightly different approach:



          1) There is a loose gene in the sperm, along with a chemical that replaces a target pattern in the egg with the gene. This gene is vital for survival.



          2) Include 51 copies of the target pattern in the creature's DNA. This must likewise be vital for survival.



          After your 50 generations are up the creature is missing the vital gene, it quickly dies in utero.



          Mutation is going to be a serious problem here, you probably want something like a quad-DNA approach (instead of our two-copy approach) with very good checking chemicals to make mutation very unlikely. Note that such a creature inherently must be from the lab, the mutation protection needed to keep the death switch working over 50 generations makes it evolve very slowly--which means it won't have time to evolve in the first place.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            3












            $begingroup$

            Of the existing answers I like this one by Aos Sidhe best, but I would probably do it slightly differently.



            Make your animal susceptible to a poison/virus which causes infertility. The poison should be airborne. Set 3 or 4 (for redundancy) meteorites moving towards you plant so they arrive in 50 generations, they carry the poison/virus, and will air burst as they enter in the atmosphere.



            There is less risk of genetic drift devaluing the poison/virus as it does not have a counterpart on the planet. Winds should delivery the poison/virus world wide in a year or so, even if only a single meteorite arrives. Faster if the animal has developed intelligence and travel.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$





















              2












              $begingroup$

              Tandem repeat mutation disease and genetic anticipation.



              Some genetic diseases occur earlier and earlier with each generation. Most of these diseases are caused by mutations in genes with tandem repeats. The number of repeats gradually expand, and affected children manifest the disease younger than their parents did.



              Expandable DNA repeats and human disease. Mirkin SM.




              One of the central principles of classical (mendelian) genetics is
              that mutations are stably transmitted between generations. As long ago
              as 1918, however, a different type of inheritance was described for a
              human neurological disorder, myotonic dystrophy1. This type of
              inheritance was characterized by increased expressivity: that is, a
              decreased age of onset and increased severity in individuals of
              subsequent generations. A similar hereditary pattern was later
              observed for other neurological diseases: for example, Huntington’s
              disease, spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, and several ataxias. The
              penetrance — that is, the probability that a given mutation results in
              disease — can also increase in successive generations, as was first
              demonstrated for fragile X syndrome2. This unusual type of inheritance
              — characterized by a progressive increase in the expressivity and,
              sometimes, the penetrance of a mutation as it passes through
              generations — was called genetic anticipation.




              The gradual expansion of the mutant gene is your timer counting down to 50 generations. With each generation is gets slightly longer. A (probably neurologic) disease which initially would not manifest within an individual's lifetime begins to show up in the very aged. With each generation, younger individuals develop the disease. At the 50th generation the disease occurs at the time of puberty, and these individuals do not live to bear children.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$





















                2












                $begingroup$

                You can do it by having the first generation of females have a set number of eggs, all of which are transferred to their first offspring (except for the one that generates the offspring). This way each child has one fewer egg available than their parent, and when the eggs run out, the species dies.



                How it happens biologically: I would say take your pick between the gestation process engulfing all the remaining eggs at the start (and maybe this is necessary in order for gestation to be successful), or at some stage of the growth of the embryo the eggs are transferred in (and again, this is necessary for successful growth). The first might be easier to work up as a biological process without (too much) handwaving.



                This also gives you some options for twins taking half the egg supply each (or some other percentage) and so having some of the animals unable to produce a full number of generations) and an option to have (mad?) scientists interested in taking eggs from 'weaker' animals in order to extend the generational life of 'stronger' animals.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$













                • $begingroup$
                  Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! Please take the time to read through our tour and visit our help center if you need more information, even if you have done so on other stacks as the rules and culture vary between sites. As a new user to our site, i would encourage you to visit the Sandbox on Worldbuilding Meta if you are unsure if a question is suitable for our site, users over there will help you craft your question. I also encourage you to visit our list of worldbuilding resources for inspiration and help with general questions: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/143606/40609
                  $endgroup$
                  – Liam Morris
                  Apr 22 at 10:43












                • $begingroup$
                  As you point out this could be abused and not truly support a random number of offspring from any individual.
                  $endgroup$
                  – KalleMP
                  Apr 22 at 11:21










                • $begingroup$
                  @KalleMP the question doesn't ask for a random number, but rather a specific (albeit indeterminate) number. I would not say this is an abuse, but rather a flexibility -- often useful when worldbuilding.
                  $endgroup$
                  – postmortes
                  Apr 22 at 11:35










                • $begingroup$
                  My comment about abuse was your observation of the mad scientist abuse. The random number problem was that if the parent had 2 children they would only have 24 generations left, with triplets only 16 generations. Subsequent pregnancy they would then have sterile ofspring.
                  $endgroup$
                  – KalleMP
                  Apr 22 at 11:40






                • 1




                  $begingroup$
                  @KalleMP I apologise for not having understood you :)
                  $endgroup$
                  – postmortes
                  Apr 22 at 11:43



















                1












                $begingroup$

                Express mtDNA-specific cytidine deaminase in oocyte mitochondria.



                Mitochondria are cellular organelles which, among other things, convert hydrocarbons like glucose into fuel that the cell can use, typically ATP. Mitochondria actually contain their own DNA, called mtDNA, which is separate from the cell's nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria originate from bacteria, they lack the sophisticated DNA protection and repair mechanisms provided to nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria are only passed on by the mother (the ones in sperm do not make it to the oocyte), mutations can build up over generations. This is especially likely given the fact that the internal environment of the mitochondrion is highly toxic to DNA due to high concentrations of free radicles. To prevent this, oocyte mitochondria are kept in a highly inactive state, limiting DNA damage.



                So... what if you could speed up the mutation rate of mtDNA? There is a class of enzymes called cytidine deaminases which mutate nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. It converts a nucleic base called cytidine to uridine, causing a mutation. This mutation is quickly corrected in nuclear DNA, but not in mtDNA. If you were to express a slow-acting cytidine deaminase in the mitochondria of maternal oocytes (egg cells), then over time, sufficient mutations would accumulate in the mitochondria of offspring that the embryos would eventually become non-viable. Because these mutations would be passed along in each generation, there would be a gradual reduction in viability.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$





















                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  Polyploidy.



                  I don't think the telomere approach will work at all. If it did, we would have died out. Or rather, would never have existed. Short telomeres are a normal thing, happens to everybody (except the ones who die in an accident), yet nature "just makes it" so gametes are good to go anyway. Sperm from a 100 year old is, well, not precisely as good as sperm from a 17 year old in terms of numbers and mobility and such, but... whatever. It still works, and whatever comes out is a perfectly good individual with perfectly good telomers.



                  Now, polyploidy might be a better strategy. While it can be somewhat troublesome on higher animals, it's a well-established thing for plants, some frogs and amphibian stuff, a couple of marine vertebrae, and some worms.



                  If you have a population of, say, 2n males and 4n females, the offspring will be 3n. For a 3n individual, undergoing meiosis is, uh, troublesome. Because 3 doesn't divide by 2 so well.

                  So, that's that. No gametes, no offspring. Unless you do it like wild dandelion, which despite being unable to reproduce just tells you "Yeah, you know what, f... off!" and simply goes agamosperm, reproducing anyway. But for an animal, that's reasonably unlikely to happen.



                  The real challenge is that you want not 2 or 3, but 50 generations which are OK, so you would need to find a number which only results in an odd pairing after 50 generations. That's probably a tough one.

                  It's fiction though, so... got some leeway, I'd say. Might just say "poly" and not mention how many.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$














                    Your Answer








                    StackExchange.ready(function() {
                    var channelOptions = {
                    tags: "".split(" "),
                    id: "579"
                    };
                    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                    createEditor();
                    });
                    }
                    else {
                    createEditor();
                    }
                    });

                    function createEditor() {
                    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                    heartbeatType: 'answer',
                    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                    convertImagesToLinks: false,
                    noModals: true,
                    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                    reputationToPostImages: null,
                    bindNavPrevention: true,
                    postfix: "",
                    imageUploader: {
                    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                    allowUrls: true
                    },
                    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                    });


                    }
                    });














                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144477%2fhow-to-make-an-animal-which-can-only-breed-for-a-certain-number-of-generations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown

























                    13 Answers
                    13






                    active

                    oldest

                    votes








                    13 Answers
                    13






                    active

                    oldest

                    votes









                    active

                    oldest

                    votes






                    active

                    oldest

                    votes









                    24












                    $begingroup$

                    I think you'd have to mess with telomere length. I'm not sure exactly how you would do this and have it pass down to their offspring, but if the species loses a specific amount of telomere length per generation, eventually things stop working. (This might result in severe medical problems in the last few generations.)



                    Note that within 50 generations there's a chance that this change mutates away, and the larger the number of offspring, the more likely one of them rolls the dice just right. Have a backup plan. (But then that's a problem with almost anything biological.)



                    Alternate: make them extremely susceptible to a certain chemical, not naturally found in the environment. Release the chemical once generation 50 rolls around. (Does require you to stick around.)






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      Each time a cell divides (mitosis), the telomeres aren't fully copied. Telemores are a repeating set of non-encoding codons, that protect the end of DNA from damage. During the meiosis stage of gametogenesis (production of sperm and eggs) the gamete actives "Telomerase reverse transcriptase" to regenerate the telomeres. There are conditions which this stops happening. If this happens, then eventually the genes are the ends of the DNA will fail to be copied correctly, which will lead to the death of all offspring.
                      $endgroup$
                      – CSM
                      Apr 21 at 9:13








                    • 15




                      $begingroup$
                      Doing the inverse of your chemical process might make more sense: give the initial population a high dose of some chemical that decays over time (maybe a radioisotope?) and make a high concentration essential for reproduction. If it transmits via the placenta in pregnancy or via breastfeeding you can tune the half life/transmission ratio to drop past some critical threshold at generation X. No need for you to stick around.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Joe Bloggs
                      Apr 21 at 10:18










                    • $begingroup$
                      pluto-genesis O_o @JoeBloggs
                      $endgroup$
                      – GameDeveloper
                      Apr 21 at 15:14








                    • 3




                      $begingroup$
                      @JoeBloggs Now that I think about it, having creatures depend on an artificial chemical is common when dealing with things you don't want escaping into the wild. It's usually placed in the environment, though. This has the benefit that it's easier to set up. Just provide enough of the chemical for 50 generations, then leave. You don't need to mess around with passing the chemical around or half-lives or anything, just a finite amount of the chemical, and a population that depends on it.
                      $endgroup$
                      – user3757614
                      Apr 21 at 19:47






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Yeah, that works too. Especially if consumption of the thing is highly regulated. Just got to watch out that The chemical confers some benefit, or evolution might sidestep your control mechanism. After all, Life finds a way.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Joe Bloggs
                      Apr 21 at 20:06
















                    24












                    $begingroup$

                    I think you'd have to mess with telomere length. I'm not sure exactly how you would do this and have it pass down to their offspring, but if the species loses a specific amount of telomere length per generation, eventually things stop working. (This might result in severe medical problems in the last few generations.)



                    Note that within 50 generations there's a chance that this change mutates away, and the larger the number of offspring, the more likely one of them rolls the dice just right. Have a backup plan. (But then that's a problem with almost anything biological.)



                    Alternate: make them extremely susceptible to a certain chemical, not naturally found in the environment. Release the chemical once generation 50 rolls around. (Does require you to stick around.)






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      Each time a cell divides (mitosis), the telomeres aren't fully copied. Telemores are a repeating set of non-encoding codons, that protect the end of DNA from damage. During the meiosis stage of gametogenesis (production of sperm and eggs) the gamete actives "Telomerase reverse transcriptase" to regenerate the telomeres. There are conditions which this stops happening. If this happens, then eventually the genes are the ends of the DNA will fail to be copied correctly, which will lead to the death of all offspring.
                      $endgroup$
                      – CSM
                      Apr 21 at 9:13








                    • 15




                      $begingroup$
                      Doing the inverse of your chemical process might make more sense: give the initial population a high dose of some chemical that decays over time (maybe a radioisotope?) and make a high concentration essential for reproduction. If it transmits via the placenta in pregnancy or via breastfeeding you can tune the half life/transmission ratio to drop past some critical threshold at generation X. No need for you to stick around.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Joe Bloggs
                      Apr 21 at 10:18










                    • $begingroup$
                      pluto-genesis O_o @JoeBloggs
                      $endgroup$
                      – GameDeveloper
                      Apr 21 at 15:14








                    • 3




                      $begingroup$
                      @JoeBloggs Now that I think about it, having creatures depend on an artificial chemical is common when dealing with things you don't want escaping into the wild. It's usually placed in the environment, though. This has the benefit that it's easier to set up. Just provide enough of the chemical for 50 generations, then leave. You don't need to mess around with passing the chemical around or half-lives or anything, just a finite amount of the chemical, and a population that depends on it.
                      $endgroup$
                      – user3757614
                      Apr 21 at 19:47






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Yeah, that works too. Especially if consumption of the thing is highly regulated. Just got to watch out that The chemical confers some benefit, or evolution might sidestep your control mechanism. After all, Life finds a way.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Joe Bloggs
                      Apr 21 at 20:06














                    24












                    24








                    24





                    $begingroup$

                    I think you'd have to mess with telomere length. I'm not sure exactly how you would do this and have it pass down to their offspring, but if the species loses a specific amount of telomere length per generation, eventually things stop working. (This might result in severe medical problems in the last few generations.)



                    Note that within 50 generations there's a chance that this change mutates away, and the larger the number of offspring, the more likely one of them rolls the dice just right. Have a backup plan. (But then that's a problem with almost anything biological.)



                    Alternate: make them extremely susceptible to a certain chemical, not naturally found in the environment. Release the chemical once generation 50 rolls around. (Does require you to stick around.)






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    I think you'd have to mess with telomere length. I'm not sure exactly how you would do this and have it pass down to their offspring, but if the species loses a specific amount of telomere length per generation, eventually things stop working. (This might result in severe medical problems in the last few generations.)



                    Note that within 50 generations there's a chance that this change mutates away, and the larger the number of offspring, the more likely one of them rolls the dice just right. Have a backup plan. (But then that's a problem with almost anything biological.)



                    Alternate: make them extremely susceptible to a certain chemical, not naturally found in the environment. Release the chemical once generation 50 rolls around. (Does require you to stick around.)







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Apr 21 at 6:01









                    user3757614user3757614

                    1,241167




                    1,241167








                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      Each time a cell divides (mitosis), the telomeres aren't fully copied. Telemores are a repeating set of non-encoding codons, that protect the end of DNA from damage. During the meiosis stage of gametogenesis (production of sperm and eggs) the gamete actives "Telomerase reverse transcriptase" to regenerate the telomeres. There are conditions which this stops happening. If this happens, then eventually the genes are the ends of the DNA will fail to be copied correctly, which will lead to the death of all offspring.
                      $endgroup$
                      – CSM
                      Apr 21 at 9:13








                    • 15




                      $begingroup$
                      Doing the inverse of your chemical process might make more sense: give the initial population a high dose of some chemical that decays over time (maybe a radioisotope?) and make a high concentration essential for reproduction. If it transmits via the placenta in pregnancy or via breastfeeding you can tune the half life/transmission ratio to drop past some critical threshold at generation X. No need for you to stick around.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Joe Bloggs
                      Apr 21 at 10:18










                    • $begingroup$
                      pluto-genesis O_o @JoeBloggs
                      $endgroup$
                      – GameDeveloper
                      Apr 21 at 15:14








                    • 3




                      $begingroup$
                      @JoeBloggs Now that I think about it, having creatures depend on an artificial chemical is common when dealing with things you don't want escaping into the wild. It's usually placed in the environment, though. This has the benefit that it's easier to set up. Just provide enough of the chemical for 50 generations, then leave. You don't need to mess around with passing the chemical around or half-lives or anything, just a finite amount of the chemical, and a population that depends on it.
                      $endgroup$
                      – user3757614
                      Apr 21 at 19:47






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Yeah, that works too. Especially if consumption of the thing is highly regulated. Just got to watch out that The chemical confers some benefit, or evolution might sidestep your control mechanism. After all, Life finds a way.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Joe Bloggs
                      Apr 21 at 20:06














                    • 2




                      $begingroup$
                      Each time a cell divides (mitosis), the telomeres aren't fully copied. Telemores are a repeating set of non-encoding codons, that protect the end of DNA from damage. During the meiosis stage of gametogenesis (production of sperm and eggs) the gamete actives "Telomerase reverse transcriptase" to regenerate the telomeres. There are conditions which this stops happening. If this happens, then eventually the genes are the ends of the DNA will fail to be copied correctly, which will lead to the death of all offspring.
                      $endgroup$
                      – CSM
                      Apr 21 at 9:13








                    • 15




                      $begingroup$
                      Doing the inverse of your chemical process might make more sense: give the initial population a high dose of some chemical that decays over time (maybe a radioisotope?) and make a high concentration essential for reproduction. If it transmits via the placenta in pregnancy or via breastfeeding you can tune the half life/transmission ratio to drop past some critical threshold at generation X. No need for you to stick around.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Joe Bloggs
                      Apr 21 at 10:18










                    • $begingroup$
                      pluto-genesis O_o @JoeBloggs
                      $endgroup$
                      – GameDeveloper
                      Apr 21 at 15:14








                    • 3




                      $begingroup$
                      @JoeBloggs Now that I think about it, having creatures depend on an artificial chemical is common when dealing with things you don't want escaping into the wild. It's usually placed in the environment, though. This has the benefit that it's easier to set up. Just provide enough of the chemical for 50 generations, then leave. You don't need to mess around with passing the chemical around or half-lives or anything, just a finite amount of the chemical, and a population that depends on it.
                      $endgroup$
                      – user3757614
                      Apr 21 at 19:47






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Yeah, that works too. Especially if consumption of the thing is highly regulated. Just got to watch out that The chemical confers some benefit, or evolution might sidestep your control mechanism. After all, Life finds a way.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Joe Bloggs
                      Apr 21 at 20:06








                    2




                    2




                    $begingroup$
                    Each time a cell divides (mitosis), the telomeres aren't fully copied. Telemores are a repeating set of non-encoding codons, that protect the end of DNA from damage. During the meiosis stage of gametogenesis (production of sperm and eggs) the gamete actives "Telomerase reverse transcriptase" to regenerate the telomeres. There are conditions which this stops happening. If this happens, then eventually the genes are the ends of the DNA will fail to be copied correctly, which will lead to the death of all offspring.
                    $endgroup$
                    – CSM
                    Apr 21 at 9:13






                    $begingroup$
                    Each time a cell divides (mitosis), the telomeres aren't fully copied. Telemores are a repeating set of non-encoding codons, that protect the end of DNA from damage. During the meiosis stage of gametogenesis (production of sperm and eggs) the gamete actives "Telomerase reverse transcriptase" to regenerate the telomeres. There are conditions which this stops happening. If this happens, then eventually the genes are the ends of the DNA will fail to be copied correctly, which will lead to the death of all offspring.
                    $endgroup$
                    – CSM
                    Apr 21 at 9:13






                    15




                    15




                    $begingroup$
                    Doing the inverse of your chemical process might make more sense: give the initial population a high dose of some chemical that decays over time (maybe a radioisotope?) and make a high concentration essential for reproduction. If it transmits via the placenta in pregnancy or via breastfeeding you can tune the half life/transmission ratio to drop past some critical threshold at generation X. No need for you to stick around.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 21 at 10:18




                    $begingroup$
                    Doing the inverse of your chemical process might make more sense: give the initial population a high dose of some chemical that decays over time (maybe a radioisotope?) and make a high concentration essential for reproduction. If it transmits via the placenta in pregnancy or via breastfeeding you can tune the half life/transmission ratio to drop past some critical threshold at generation X. No need for you to stick around.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 21 at 10:18












                    $begingroup$
                    pluto-genesis O_o @JoeBloggs
                    $endgroup$
                    – GameDeveloper
                    Apr 21 at 15:14






                    $begingroup$
                    pluto-genesis O_o @JoeBloggs
                    $endgroup$
                    – GameDeveloper
                    Apr 21 at 15:14






                    3




                    3




                    $begingroup$
                    @JoeBloggs Now that I think about it, having creatures depend on an artificial chemical is common when dealing with things you don't want escaping into the wild. It's usually placed in the environment, though. This has the benefit that it's easier to set up. Just provide enough of the chemical for 50 generations, then leave. You don't need to mess around with passing the chemical around or half-lives or anything, just a finite amount of the chemical, and a population that depends on it.
                    $endgroup$
                    – user3757614
                    Apr 21 at 19:47




                    $begingroup$
                    @JoeBloggs Now that I think about it, having creatures depend on an artificial chemical is common when dealing with things you don't want escaping into the wild. It's usually placed in the environment, though. This has the benefit that it's easier to set up. Just provide enough of the chemical for 50 generations, then leave. You don't need to mess around with passing the chemical around or half-lives or anything, just a finite amount of the chemical, and a population that depends on it.
                    $endgroup$
                    – user3757614
                    Apr 21 at 19:47




                    1




                    1




                    $begingroup$
                    Yeah, that works too. Especially if consumption of the thing is highly regulated. Just got to watch out that The chemical confers some benefit, or evolution might sidestep your control mechanism. After all, Life finds a way.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 21 at 20:06




                    $begingroup$
                    Yeah, that works too. Especially if consumption of the thing is highly regulated. Just got to watch out that The chemical confers some benefit, or evolution might sidestep your control mechanism. After all, Life finds a way.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Joe Bloggs
                    Apr 21 at 20:06











                    8












                    $begingroup$

                    Make fifty generations of eggs (or whatever). Put them in incubators that only trigger the hatching criteria at the appropriate time. This will be much easier to manage than the biological alternative.



                    Biologically, what you would do is change the gene copying mechanism to remove a sequence from the DNA. For the first fifty generations, it removes a meaningless sequence inserted for that purpose. On the fifty-first generation, it removes something important. It's also possible that it might remove something reproduction related in the fiftieth generation so that it's sterile.



                    The problem with the biological alternative is that it will tend to have a high failure rate. Think of the things that can go wrong:




                    1. It might start at the wrong place and end early.

                    2. It might continue too long, removing two sequences (or more) instead of one.

                    3. It might fail, allowing the animal to keep breeding perpetually.

                    4. It might start at the wrong place and introduce a problematic mutation in that generation.


                    And variants of those.



                    Another easier alternative would be to make the animals long-lived. Then you could have just one sterile generation that lives for fifty normal generations.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$


















                      8












                      $begingroup$

                      Make fifty generations of eggs (or whatever). Put them in incubators that only trigger the hatching criteria at the appropriate time. This will be much easier to manage than the biological alternative.



                      Biologically, what you would do is change the gene copying mechanism to remove a sequence from the DNA. For the first fifty generations, it removes a meaningless sequence inserted for that purpose. On the fifty-first generation, it removes something important. It's also possible that it might remove something reproduction related in the fiftieth generation so that it's sterile.



                      The problem with the biological alternative is that it will tend to have a high failure rate. Think of the things that can go wrong:




                      1. It might start at the wrong place and end early.

                      2. It might continue too long, removing two sequences (or more) instead of one.

                      3. It might fail, allowing the animal to keep breeding perpetually.

                      4. It might start at the wrong place and introduce a problematic mutation in that generation.


                      And variants of those.



                      Another easier alternative would be to make the animals long-lived. Then you could have just one sterile generation that lives for fifty normal generations.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$
















                        8












                        8








                        8





                        $begingroup$

                        Make fifty generations of eggs (or whatever). Put them in incubators that only trigger the hatching criteria at the appropriate time. This will be much easier to manage than the biological alternative.



                        Biologically, what you would do is change the gene copying mechanism to remove a sequence from the DNA. For the first fifty generations, it removes a meaningless sequence inserted for that purpose. On the fifty-first generation, it removes something important. It's also possible that it might remove something reproduction related in the fiftieth generation so that it's sterile.



                        The problem with the biological alternative is that it will tend to have a high failure rate. Think of the things that can go wrong:




                        1. It might start at the wrong place and end early.

                        2. It might continue too long, removing two sequences (or more) instead of one.

                        3. It might fail, allowing the animal to keep breeding perpetually.

                        4. It might start at the wrong place and introduce a problematic mutation in that generation.


                        And variants of those.



                        Another easier alternative would be to make the animals long-lived. Then you could have just one sterile generation that lives for fifty normal generations.






                        share|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$



                        Make fifty generations of eggs (or whatever). Put them in incubators that only trigger the hatching criteria at the appropriate time. This will be much easier to manage than the biological alternative.



                        Biologically, what you would do is change the gene copying mechanism to remove a sequence from the DNA. For the first fifty generations, it removes a meaningless sequence inserted for that purpose. On the fifty-first generation, it removes something important. It's also possible that it might remove something reproduction related in the fiftieth generation so that it's sterile.



                        The problem with the biological alternative is that it will tend to have a high failure rate. Think of the things that can go wrong:




                        1. It might start at the wrong place and end early.

                        2. It might continue too long, removing two sequences (or more) instead of one.

                        3. It might fail, allowing the animal to keep breeding perpetually.

                        4. It might start at the wrong place and introduce a problematic mutation in that generation.


                        And variants of those.



                        Another easier alternative would be to make the animals long-lived. Then you could have just one sterile generation that lives for fifty normal generations.







                        share|improve this answer












                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer










                        answered Apr 21 at 8:32









                        BrythanBrythan

                        21.9k84388




                        21.9k84388























                            7












                            $begingroup$

                            `Grandchildless' gene in the fruit fly (Drosophila Melanogaster) exists. It increases the fly's average number of offspring, but the offspring are sterile. You may look into whether the gene has been modified for a larger number of generations.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$













                            • $begingroup$
                              It can't it works by producing offspring with no genitalia.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 0:18






                            • 1




                              $begingroup$
                              @John it might be able to if it requires more than one gene. What if it requires 100 genes, and each starting creature has only one, and they're all recessive? This should mean it's impossible to have it work on any individual animal before generation 50.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Ryan_L
                              Apr 22 at 4:48










                            • $begingroup$
                              If it requires more than one gene than a mutation to any one of those genes can prevent it from working. heck if one creature dies it doesn't work.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 13:50
















                            7












                            $begingroup$

                            `Grandchildless' gene in the fruit fly (Drosophila Melanogaster) exists. It increases the fly's average number of offspring, but the offspring are sterile. You may look into whether the gene has been modified for a larger number of generations.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$













                            • $begingroup$
                              It can't it works by producing offspring with no genitalia.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 0:18






                            • 1




                              $begingroup$
                              @John it might be able to if it requires more than one gene. What if it requires 100 genes, and each starting creature has only one, and they're all recessive? This should mean it's impossible to have it work on any individual animal before generation 50.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Ryan_L
                              Apr 22 at 4:48










                            • $begingroup$
                              If it requires more than one gene than a mutation to any one of those genes can prevent it from working. heck if one creature dies it doesn't work.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 13:50














                            7












                            7








                            7





                            $begingroup$

                            `Grandchildless' gene in the fruit fly (Drosophila Melanogaster) exists. It increases the fly's average number of offspring, but the offspring are sterile. You may look into whether the gene has been modified for a larger number of generations.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            `Grandchildless' gene in the fruit fly (Drosophila Melanogaster) exists. It increases the fly's average number of offspring, but the offspring are sterile. You may look into whether the gene has been modified for a larger number of generations.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Apr 21 at 18:21









                            Sander HeinsaluSander Heinsalu

                            1912




                            1912












                            • $begingroup$
                              It can't it works by producing offspring with no genitalia.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 0:18






                            • 1




                              $begingroup$
                              @John it might be able to if it requires more than one gene. What if it requires 100 genes, and each starting creature has only one, and they're all recessive? This should mean it's impossible to have it work on any individual animal before generation 50.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Ryan_L
                              Apr 22 at 4:48










                            • $begingroup$
                              If it requires more than one gene than a mutation to any one of those genes can prevent it from working. heck if one creature dies it doesn't work.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 13:50


















                            • $begingroup$
                              It can't it works by producing offspring with no genitalia.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 0:18






                            • 1




                              $begingroup$
                              @John it might be able to if it requires more than one gene. What if it requires 100 genes, and each starting creature has only one, and they're all recessive? This should mean it's impossible to have it work on any individual animal before generation 50.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Ryan_L
                              Apr 22 at 4:48










                            • $begingroup$
                              If it requires more than one gene than a mutation to any one of those genes can prevent it from working. heck if one creature dies it doesn't work.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 13:50
















                            $begingroup$
                            It can't it works by producing offspring with no genitalia.
                            $endgroup$
                            – John
                            Apr 22 at 0:18




                            $begingroup$
                            It can't it works by producing offspring with no genitalia.
                            $endgroup$
                            – John
                            Apr 22 at 0:18




                            1




                            1




                            $begingroup$
                            @John it might be able to if it requires more than one gene. What if it requires 100 genes, and each starting creature has only one, and they're all recessive? This should mean it's impossible to have it work on any individual animal before generation 50.
                            $endgroup$
                            – Ryan_L
                            Apr 22 at 4:48




                            $begingroup$
                            @John it might be able to if it requires more than one gene. What if it requires 100 genes, and each starting creature has only one, and they're all recessive? This should mean it's impossible to have it work on any individual animal before generation 50.
                            $endgroup$
                            – Ryan_L
                            Apr 22 at 4:48












                            $begingroup$
                            If it requires more than one gene than a mutation to any one of those genes can prevent it from working. heck if one creature dies it doesn't work.
                            $endgroup$
                            – John
                            Apr 22 at 13:50




                            $begingroup$
                            If it requires more than one gene than a mutation to any one of those genes can prevent it from working. heck if one creature dies it doesn't work.
                            $endgroup$
                            – John
                            Apr 22 at 13:50











                            6












                            $begingroup$

                            If it's OK that not exact but expected number of generations is limited then you could add mutation which makes child sterile. With 10% for such mutation in single generation you get about 0.5% that 51th generation will exists.

                            The drawback you have decreasing population during whole period.



                            UPDATE



                            It works only for animals that grow up few childs in a moment. Most big enough animals select this strategy. If your animal produces numerous offspring (like mouse or fish) then we should change mutation: It should reduce every next generation by 10%. And somehow you need to make sure it will appear in each generation.






                            share|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$









                            • 3




                              $begingroup$
                              I think this only works if it's a specific individual that reproduces asexually. This is equivalent to killing off 10% of each generation before they reproduce, and there are a great many species that do just fine with 90%+ of each generation dying before reproducing. This also creates a strong natural selection pressure to remove this mutation.
                              $endgroup$
                              – user3757614
                              Apr 21 at 6:07










                            • $begingroup$
                              @user3757614 I suggest very specific mutation: it should always provoke 10% of children to be sterile, so selection won't help. Since many species produce lot offsprings, big animals tend to grow only few children. I update answer to be more clear.
                              $endgroup$
                              – ADS
                              Apr 21 at 18:51










                            • $begingroup$
                              the problem is such a gene can mutate, and there is no way to get precision percentages with genes. Recombination is a randomizing aspect that evolve to specifically help eliminate linkages like this.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 14:00
















                            6












                            $begingroup$

                            If it's OK that not exact but expected number of generations is limited then you could add mutation which makes child sterile. With 10% for such mutation in single generation you get about 0.5% that 51th generation will exists.

                            The drawback you have decreasing population during whole period.



                            UPDATE



                            It works only for animals that grow up few childs in a moment. Most big enough animals select this strategy. If your animal produces numerous offspring (like mouse or fish) then we should change mutation: It should reduce every next generation by 10%. And somehow you need to make sure it will appear in each generation.






                            share|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$









                            • 3




                              $begingroup$
                              I think this only works if it's a specific individual that reproduces asexually. This is equivalent to killing off 10% of each generation before they reproduce, and there are a great many species that do just fine with 90%+ of each generation dying before reproducing. This also creates a strong natural selection pressure to remove this mutation.
                              $endgroup$
                              – user3757614
                              Apr 21 at 6:07










                            • $begingroup$
                              @user3757614 I suggest very specific mutation: it should always provoke 10% of children to be sterile, so selection won't help. Since many species produce lot offsprings, big animals tend to grow only few children. I update answer to be more clear.
                              $endgroup$
                              – ADS
                              Apr 21 at 18:51










                            • $begingroup$
                              the problem is such a gene can mutate, and there is no way to get precision percentages with genes. Recombination is a randomizing aspect that evolve to specifically help eliminate linkages like this.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 14:00














                            6












                            6








                            6





                            $begingroup$

                            If it's OK that not exact but expected number of generations is limited then you could add mutation which makes child sterile. With 10% for such mutation in single generation you get about 0.5% that 51th generation will exists.

                            The drawback you have decreasing population during whole period.



                            UPDATE



                            It works only for animals that grow up few childs in a moment. Most big enough animals select this strategy. If your animal produces numerous offspring (like mouse or fish) then we should change mutation: It should reduce every next generation by 10%. And somehow you need to make sure it will appear in each generation.






                            share|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$



                            If it's OK that not exact but expected number of generations is limited then you could add mutation which makes child sterile. With 10% for such mutation in single generation you get about 0.5% that 51th generation will exists.

                            The drawback you have decreasing population during whole period.



                            UPDATE



                            It works only for animals that grow up few childs in a moment. Most big enough animals select this strategy. If your animal produces numerous offspring (like mouse or fish) then we should change mutation: It should reduce every next generation by 10%. And somehow you need to make sure it will appear in each generation.







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited Apr 21 at 19:00

























                            answered Apr 21 at 5:56









                            ADSADS

                            2,420412




                            2,420412








                            • 3




                              $begingroup$
                              I think this only works if it's a specific individual that reproduces asexually. This is equivalent to killing off 10% of each generation before they reproduce, and there are a great many species that do just fine with 90%+ of each generation dying before reproducing. This also creates a strong natural selection pressure to remove this mutation.
                              $endgroup$
                              – user3757614
                              Apr 21 at 6:07










                            • $begingroup$
                              @user3757614 I suggest very specific mutation: it should always provoke 10% of children to be sterile, so selection won't help. Since many species produce lot offsprings, big animals tend to grow only few children. I update answer to be more clear.
                              $endgroup$
                              – ADS
                              Apr 21 at 18:51










                            • $begingroup$
                              the problem is such a gene can mutate, and there is no way to get precision percentages with genes. Recombination is a randomizing aspect that evolve to specifically help eliminate linkages like this.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 14:00














                            • 3




                              $begingroup$
                              I think this only works if it's a specific individual that reproduces asexually. This is equivalent to killing off 10% of each generation before they reproduce, and there are a great many species that do just fine with 90%+ of each generation dying before reproducing. This also creates a strong natural selection pressure to remove this mutation.
                              $endgroup$
                              – user3757614
                              Apr 21 at 6:07










                            • $begingroup$
                              @user3757614 I suggest very specific mutation: it should always provoke 10% of children to be sterile, so selection won't help. Since many species produce lot offsprings, big animals tend to grow only few children. I update answer to be more clear.
                              $endgroup$
                              – ADS
                              Apr 21 at 18:51










                            • $begingroup$
                              the problem is such a gene can mutate, and there is no way to get precision percentages with genes. Recombination is a randomizing aspect that evolve to specifically help eliminate linkages like this.
                              $endgroup$
                              – John
                              Apr 22 at 14:00








                            3




                            3




                            $begingroup$
                            I think this only works if it's a specific individual that reproduces asexually. This is equivalent to killing off 10% of each generation before they reproduce, and there are a great many species that do just fine with 90%+ of each generation dying before reproducing. This also creates a strong natural selection pressure to remove this mutation.
                            $endgroup$
                            – user3757614
                            Apr 21 at 6:07




                            $begingroup$
                            I think this only works if it's a specific individual that reproduces asexually. This is equivalent to killing off 10% of each generation before they reproduce, and there are a great many species that do just fine with 90%+ of each generation dying before reproducing. This also creates a strong natural selection pressure to remove this mutation.
                            $endgroup$
                            – user3757614
                            Apr 21 at 6:07












                            $begingroup$
                            @user3757614 I suggest very specific mutation: it should always provoke 10% of children to be sterile, so selection won't help. Since many species produce lot offsprings, big animals tend to grow only few children. I update answer to be more clear.
                            $endgroup$
                            – ADS
                            Apr 21 at 18:51




                            $begingroup$
                            @user3757614 I suggest very specific mutation: it should always provoke 10% of children to be sterile, so selection won't help. Since many species produce lot offsprings, big animals tend to grow only few children. I update answer to be more clear.
                            $endgroup$
                            – ADS
                            Apr 21 at 18:51












                            $begingroup$
                            the problem is such a gene can mutate, and there is no way to get precision percentages with genes. Recombination is a randomizing aspect that evolve to specifically help eliminate linkages like this.
                            $endgroup$
                            – John
                            Apr 22 at 14:00




                            $begingroup$
                            the problem is such a gene can mutate, and there is no way to get precision percentages with genes. Recombination is a randomizing aspect that evolve to specifically help eliminate linkages like this.
                            $endgroup$
                            – John
                            Apr 22 at 14:00











                            5












                            $begingroup$

                            You can't do it reliably.



                            If it can breed for multiple generations it can evolve and change whatever you did to it. More importantly if it can breed for multiple generations it already has everything it needs to keep replicating forever so such a mutation is easy. The best you can do is limit their diversity so detrimental genes kill off most of each generation and does not leave enough diversity to survive catastrophic events, but that is not going to be precise or 100% reliable.






                            share|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$


















                              5












                              $begingroup$

                              You can't do it reliably.



                              If it can breed for multiple generations it can evolve and change whatever you did to it. More importantly if it can breed for multiple generations it already has everything it needs to keep replicating forever so such a mutation is easy. The best you can do is limit their diversity so detrimental genes kill off most of each generation and does not leave enough diversity to survive catastrophic events, but that is not going to be precise or 100% reliable.






                              share|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$
















                                5












                                5








                                5





                                $begingroup$

                                You can't do it reliably.



                                If it can breed for multiple generations it can evolve and change whatever you did to it. More importantly if it can breed for multiple generations it already has everything it needs to keep replicating forever so such a mutation is easy. The best you can do is limit their diversity so detrimental genes kill off most of each generation and does not leave enough diversity to survive catastrophic events, but that is not going to be precise or 100% reliable.






                                share|improve this answer











                                $endgroup$



                                You can't do it reliably.



                                If it can breed for multiple generations it can evolve and change whatever you did to it. More importantly if it can breed for multiple generations it already has everything it needs to keep replicating forever so such a mutation is easy. The best you can do is limit their diversity so detrimental genes kill off most of each generation and does not leave enough diversity to survive catastrophic events, but that is not going to be precise or 100% reliable.







                                share|improve this answer














                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer








                                edited Apr 22 at 14:32

























                                answered Apr 22 at 0:18









                                JohnJohn

                                37.6k1048129




                                37.6k1048129























                                    4












                                    $begingroup$

                                    Make part of the childbearing process rely upon a specific material, such as a mineral or a chemical, passed down from mother to children (maybe while the child is developing in the womb). There is only a certain amount that is necessary, and they start out with far more than they all need, but it is non-replenishable and slowly degrades or is lost. Eventually, around the 50th generation (or whatever other point you wish, just adjust the variables) there won't be enough to catalyze a successful pregnancy, and any pregnancies will fail.



                                    The weakness of this is threefold: one, it's imprecise: if a significant number of the breeding population dies, then the end may come that much faster (as the catalyst now has much less to go around). It's also somewhat reliant upon guesswork, for some individuals may run out faster than others, leading to a few stragglers still having successful pregnancies in the 51st generation, or a sudden lack of viable births in the 49th, etc. Finally, there's the lesson we learned from Jurassic Park—life finds a way. It's entirely possible that (if this race is sapient and has access to science of a sufficient level) they may diagnose this issue and correct it via synthesis of the catalyst, or at least delay their extinction. But I think all these are easily overcomable with a bit of handwaving or proper setup of the scenario.






                                    share|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$


















                                      4












                                      $begingroup$

                                      Make part of the childbearing process rely upon a specific material, such as a mineral or a chemical, passed down from mother to children (maybe while the child is developing in the womb). There is only a certain amount that is necessary, and they start out with far more than they all need, but it is non-replenishable and slowly degrades or is lost. Eventually, around the 50th generation (or whatever other point you wish, just adjust the variables) there won't be enough to catalyze a successful pregnancy, and any pregnancies will fail.



                                      The weakness of this is threefold: one, it's imprecise: if a significant number of the breeding population dies, then the end may come that much faster (as the catalyst now has much less to go around). It's also somewhat reliant upon guesswork, for some individuals may run out faster than others, leading to a few stragglers still having successful pregnancies in the 51st generation, or a sudden lack of viable births in the 49th, etc. Finally, there's the lesson we learned from Jurassic Park—life finds a way. It's entirely possible that (if this race is sapient and has access to science of a sufficient level) they may diagnose this issue and correct it via synthesis of the catalyst, or at least delay their extinction. But I think all these are easily overcomable with a bit of handwaving or proper setup of the scenario.






                                      share|improve this answer









                                      $endgroup$
















                                        4












                                        4








                                        4





                                        $begingroup$

                                        Make part of the childbearing process rely upon a specific material, such as a mineral or a chemical, passed down from mother to children (maybe while the child is developing in the womb). There is only a certain amount that is necessary, and they start out with far more than they all need, but it is non-replenishable and slowly degrades or is lost. Eventually, around the 50th generation (or whatever other point you wish, just adjust the variables) there won't be enough to catalyze a successful pregnancy, and any pregnancies will fail.



                                        The weakness of this is threefold: one, it's imprecise: if a significant number of the breeding population dies, then the end may come that much faster (as the catalyst now has much less to go around). It's also somewhat reliant upon guesswork, for some individuals may run out faster than others, leading to a few stragglers still having successful pregnancies in the 51st generation, or a sudden lack of viable births in the 49th, etc. Finally, there's the lesson we learned from Jurassic Park—life finds a way. It's entirely possible that (if this race is sapient and has access to science of a sufficient level) they may diagnose this issue and correct it via synthesis of the catalyst, or at least delay their extinction. But I think all these are easily overcomable with a bit of handwaving or proper setup of the scenario.






                                        share|improve this answer









                                        $endgroup$



                                        Make part of the childbearing process rely upon a specific material, such as a mineral or a chemical, passed down from mother to children (maybe while the child is developing in the womb). There is only a certain amount that is necessary, and they start out with far more than they all need, but it is non-replenishable and slowly degrades or is lost. Eventually, around the 50th generation (or whatever other point you wish, just adjust the variables) there won't be enough to catalyze a successful pregnancy, and any pregnancies will fail.



                                        The weakness of this is threefold: one, it's imprecise: if a significant number of the breeding population dies, then the end may come that much faster (as the catalyst now has much less to go around). It's also somewhat reliant upon guesswork, for some individuals may run out faster than others, leading to a few stragglers still having successful pregnancies in the 51st generation, or a sudden lack of viable births in the 49th, etc. Finally, there's the lesson we learned from Jurassic Park—life finds a way. It's entirely possible that (if this race is sapient and has access to science of a sufficient level) they may diagnose this issue and correct it via synthesis of the catalyst, or at least delay their extinction. But I think all these are easily overcomable with a bit of handwaving or proper setup of the scenario.







                                        share|improve this answer












                                        share|improve this answer



                                        share|improve this answer










                                        answered Apr 21 at 23:53









                                        Aos SidheAos Sidhe

                                        411




                                        411























                                            3












                                            $begingroup$

                                            The encoding would need to be in the individuals phenotype and control the expression of individuals gametes on entering sexual maturity.



                                            That way when two generational limited animals mate and their offspring carry their genomes, the “decrement to sterility” could be part of the genetic instructions that generate the animals eggs or sperm.



                                            And with each generation, barring mutation, the number of generations that genome could sire would be one less than the previous generation.



                                            There might be tricks to work around the ‘decrement to sterility’ genetic encoding. Take the case were a 1st generation male impregnates a 4th generation female. The offsprings genotype would contain two different expressions of the generational limit. If the trait is dominant, then the child would be 2nd generation, but if it was recessive the child would be 5th generation.






                                            share|improve this answer









                                            $endgroup$


















                                              3












                                              $begingroup$

                                              The encoding would need to be in the individuals phenotype and control the expression of individuals gametes on entering sexual maturity.



                                              That way when two generational limited animals mate and their offspring carry their genomes, the “decrement to sterility” could be part of the genetic instructions that generate the animals eggs or sperm.



                                              And with each generation, barring mutation, the number of generations that genome could sire would be one less than the previous generation.



                                              There might be tricks to work around the ‘decrement to sterility’ genetic encoding. Take the case were a 1st generation male impregnates a 4th generation female. The offsprings genotype would contain two different expressions of the generational limit. If the trait is dominant, then the child would be 2nd generation, but if it was recessive the child would be 5th generation.






                                              share|improve this answer









                                              $endgroup$
















                                                3












                                                3








                                                3





                                                $begingroup$

                                                The encoding would need to be in the individuals phenotype and control the expression of individuals gametes on entering sexual maturity.



                                                That way when two generational limited animals mate and their offspring carry their genomes, the “decrement to sterility” could be part of the genetic instructions that generate the animals eggs or sperm.



                                                And with each generation, barring mutation, the number of generations that genome could sire would be one less than the previous generation.



                                                There might be tricks to work around the ‘decrement to sterility’ genetic encoding. Take the case were a 1st generation male impregnates a 4th generation female. The offsprings genotype would contain two different expressions of the generational limit. If the trait is dominant, then the child would be 2nd generation, but if it was recessive the child would be 5th generation.






                                                share|improve this answer









                                                $endgroup$



                                                The encoding would need to be in the individuals phenotype and control the expression of individuals gametes on entering sexual maturity.



                                                That way when two generational limited animals mate and their offspring carry their genomes, the “decrement to sterility” could be part of the genetic instructions that generate the animals eggs or sperm.



                                                And with each generation, barring mutation, the number of generations that genome could sire would be one less than the previous generation.



                                                There might be tricks to work around the ‘decrement to sterility’ genetic encoding. Take the case were a 1st generation male impregnates a 4th generation female. The offsprings genotype would contain two different expressions of the generational limit. If the trait is dominant, then the child would be 2nd generation, but if it was recessive the child would be 5th generation.







                                                share|improve this answer












                                                share|improve this answer



                                                share|improve this answer










                                                answered Apr 21 at 7:45









                                                EDLEDL

                                                1,0397




                                                1,0397























                                                    3












                                                    $begingroup$

                                                    The telomere approach of user3757614's approach is close but it ticks as the creature grows so it won't be reliable.



                                                    Thus lets take a slightly different approach:



                                                    1) There is a loose gene in the sperm, along with a chemical that replaces a target pattern in the egg with the gene. This gene is vital for survival.



                                                    2) Include 51 copies of the target pattern in the creature's DNA. This must likewise be vital for survival.



                                                    After your 50 generations are up the creature is missing the vital gene, it quickly dies in utero.



                                                    Mutation is going to be a serious problem here, you probably want something like a quad-DNA approach (instead of our two-copy approach) with very good checking chemicals to make mutation very unlikely. Note that such a creature inherently must be from the lab, the mutation protection needed to keep the death switch working over 50 generations makes it evolve very slowly--which means it won't have time to evolve in the first place.






                                                    share|improve this answer









                                                    $endgroup$


















                                                      3












                                                      $begingroup$

                                                      The telomere approach of user3757614's approach is close but it ticks as the creature grows so it won't be reliable.



                                                      Thus lets take a slightly different approach:



                                                      1) There is a loose gene in the sperm, along with a chemical that replaces a target pattern in the egg with the gene. This gene is vital for survival.



                                                      2) Include 51 copies of the target pattern in the creature's DNA. This must likewise be vital for survival.



                                                      After your 50 generations are up the creature is missing the vital gene, it quickly dies in utero.



                                                      Mutation is going to be a serious problem here, you probably want something like a quad-DNA approach (instead of our two-copy approach) with very good checking chemicals to make mutation very unlikely. Note that such a creature inherently must be from the lab, the mutation protection needed to keep the death switch working over 50 generations makes it evolve very slowly--which means it won't have time to evolve in the first place.






                                                      share|improve this answer









                                                      $endgroup$
















                                                        3












                                                        3








                                                        3





                                                        $begingroup$

                                                        The telomere approach of user3757614's approach is close but it ticks as the creature grows so it won't be reliable.



                                                        Thus lets take a slightly different approach:



                                                        1) There is a loose gene in the sperm, along with a chemical that replaces a target pattern in the egg with the gene. This gene is vital for survival.



                                                        2) Include 51 copies of the target pattern in the creature's DNA. This must likewise be vital for survival.



                                                        After your 50 generations are up the creature is missing the vital gene, it quickly dies in utero.



                                                        Mutation is going to be a serious problem here, you probably want something like a quad-DNA approach (instead of our two-copy approach) with very good checking chemicals to make mutation very unlikely. Note that such a creature inherently must be from the lab, the mutation protection needed to keep the death switch working over 50 generations makes it evolve very slowly--which means it won't have time to evolve in the first place.






                                                        share|improve this answer









                                                        $endgroup$



                                                        The telomere approach of user3757614's approach is close but it ticks as the creature grows so it won't be reliable.



                                                        Thus lets take a slightly different approach:



                                                        1) There is a loose gene in the sperm, along with a chemical that replaces a target pattern in the egg with the gene. This gene is vital for survival.



                                                        2) Include 51 copies of the target pattern in the creature's DNA. This must likewise be vital for survival.



                                                        After your 50 generations are up the creature is missing the vital gene, it quickly dies in utero.



                                                        Mutation is going to be a serious problem here, you probably want something like a quad-DNA approach (instead of our two-copy approach) with very good checking chemicals to make mutation very unlikely. Note that such a creature inherently must be from the lab, the mutation protection needed to keep the death switch working over 50 generations makes it evolve very slowly--which means it won't have time to evolve in the first place.







                                                        share|improve this answer












                                                        share|improve this answer



                                                        share|improve this answer










                                                        answered Apr 22 at 4:15









                                                        Loren PechtelLoren Pechtel

                                                        20k2263




                                                        20k2263























                                                            3












                                                            $begingroup$

                                                            Of the existing answers I like this one by Aos Sidhe best, but I would probably do it slightly differently.



                                                            Make your animal susceptible to a poison/virus which causes infertility. The poison should be airborne. Set 3 or 4 (for redundancy) meteorites moving towards you plant so they arrive in 50 generations, they carry the poison/virus, and will air burst as they enter in the atmosphere.



                                                            There is less risk of genetic drift devaluing the poison/virus as it does not have a counterpart on the planet. Winds should delivery the poison/virus world wide in a year or so, even if only a single meteorite arrives. Faster if the animal has developed intelligence and travel.






                                                            share|improve this answer









                                                            $endgroup$


















                                                              3












                                                              $begingroup$

                                                              Of the existing answers I like this one by Aos Sidhe best, but I would probably do it slightly differently.



                                                              Make your animal susceptible to a poison/virus which causes infertility. The poison should be airborne. Set 3 or 4 (for redundancy) meteorites moving towards you plant so they arrive in 50 generations, they carry the poison/virus, and will air burst as they enter in the atmosphere.



                                                              There is less risk of genetic drift devaluing the poison/virus as it does not have a counterpart on the planet. Winds should delivery the poison/virus world wide in a year or so, even if only a single meteorite arrives. Faster if the animal has developed intelligence and travel.






                                                              share|improve this answer









                                                              $endgroup$
















                                                                3












                                                                3








                                                                3





                                                                $begingroup$

                                                                Of the existing answers I like this one by Aos Sidhe best, but I would probably do it slightly differently.



                                                                Make your animal susceptible to a poison/virus which causes infertility. The poison should be airborne. Set 3 or 4 (for redundancy) meteorites moving towards you plant so they arrive in 50 generations, they carry the poison/virus, and will air burst as they enter in the atmosphere.



                                                                There is less risk of genetic drift devaluing the poison/virus as it does not have a counterpart on the planet. Winds should delivery the poison/virus world wide in a year or so, even if only a single meteorite arrives. Faster if the animal has developed intelligence and travel.






                                                                share|improve this answer









                                                                $endgroup$



                                                                Of the existing answers I like this one by Aos Sidhe best, but I would probably do it slightly differently.



                                                                Make your animal susceptible to a poison/virus which causes infertility. The poison should be airborne. Set 3 or 4 (for redundancy) meteorites moving towards you plant so they arrive in 50 generations, they carry the poison/virus, and will air burst as they enter in the atmosphere.



                                                                There is less risk of genetic drift devaluing the poison/virus as it does not have a counterpart on the planet. Winds should delivery the poison/virus world wide in a year or so, even if only a single meteorite arrives. Faster if the animal has developed intelligence and travel.







                                                                share|improve this answer












                                                                share|improve this answer



                                                                share|improve this answer










                                                                answered Apr 22 at 16:55









                                                                James JenkinsJames Jenkins

                                                                577412




                                                                577412























                                                                    2












                                                                    $begingroup$

                                                                    Tandem repeat mutation disease and genetic anticipation.



                                                                    Some genetic diseases occur earlier and earlier with each generation. Most of these diseases are caused by mutations in genes with tandem repeats. The number of repeats gradually expand, and affected children manifest the disease younger than their parents did.



                                                                    Expandable DNA repeats and human disease. Mirkin SM.




                                                                    One of the central principles of classical (mendelian) genetics is
                                                                    that mutations are stably transmitted between generations. As long ago
                                                                    as 1918, however, a different type of inheritance was described for a
                                                                    human neurological disorder, myotonic dystrophy1. This type of
                                                                    inheritance was characterized by increased expressivity: that is, a
                                                                    decreased age of onset and increased severity in individuals of
                                                                    subsequent generations. A similar hereditary pattern was later
                                                                    observed for other neurological diseases: for example, Huntington’s
                                                                    disease, spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, and several ataxias. The
                                                                    penetrance — that is, the probability that a given mutation results in
                                                                    disease — can also increase in successive generations, as was first
                                                                    demonstrated for fragile X syndrome2. This unusual type of inheritance
                                                                    — characterized by a progressive increase in the expressivity and,
                                                                    sometimes, the penetrance of a mutation as it passes through
                                                                    generations — was called genetic anticipation.




                                                                    The gradual expansion of the mutant gene is your timer counting down to 50 generations. With each generation is gets slightly longer. A (probably neurologic) disease which initially would not manifest within an individual's lifetime begins to show up in the very aged. With each generation, younger individuals develop the disease. At the 50th generation the disease occurs at the time of puberty, and these individuals do not live to bear children.






                                                                    share|improve this answer









                                                                    $endgroup$


















                                                                      2












                                                                      $begingroup$

                                                                      Tandem repeat mutation disease and genetic anticipation.



                                                                      Some genetic diseases occur earlier and earlier with each generation. Most of these diseases are caused by mutations in genes with tandem repeats. The number of repeats gradually expand, and affected children manifest the disease younger than their parents did.



                                                                      Expandable DNA repeats and human disease. Mirkin SM.




                                                                      One of the central principles of classical (mendelian) genetics is
                                                                      that mutations are stably transmitted between generations. As long ago
                                                                      as 1918, however, a different type of inheritance was described for a
                                                                      human neurological disorder, myotonic dystrophy1. This type of
                                                                      inheritance was characterized by increased expressivity: that is, a
                                                                      decreased age of onset and increased severity in individuals of
                                                                      subsequent generations. A similar hereditary pattern was later
                                                                      observed for other neurological diseases: for example, Huntington’s
                                                                      disease, spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, and several ataxias. The
                                                                      penetrance — that is, the probability that a given mutation results in
                                                                      disease — can also increase in successive generations, as was first
                                                                      demonstrated for fragile X syndrome2. This unusual type of inheritance
                                                                      — characterized by a progressive increase in the expressivity and,
                                                                      sometimes, the penetrance of a mutation as it passes through
                                                                      generations — was called genetic anticipation.




                                                                      The gradual expansion of the mutant gene is your timer counting down to 50 generations. With each generation is gets slightly longer. A (probably neurologic) disease which initially would not manifest within an individual's lifetime begins to show up in the very aged. With each generation, younger individuals develop the disease. At the 50th generation the disease occurs at the time of puberty, and these individuals do not live to bear children.






                                                                      share|improve this answer









                                                                      $endgroup$
















                                                                        2












                                                                        2








                                                                        2





                                                                        $begingroup$

                                                                        Tandem repeat mutation disease and genetic anticipation.



                                                                        Some genetic diseases occur earlier and earlier with each generation. Most of these diseases are caused by mutations in genes with tandem repeats. The number of repeats gradually expand, and affected children manifest the disease younger than their parents did.



                                                                        Expandable DNA repeats and human disease. Mirkin SM.




                                                                        One of the central principles of classical (mendelian) genetics is
                                                                        that mutations are stably transmitted between generations. As long ago
                                                                        as 1918, however, a different type of inheritance was described for a
                                                                        human neurological disorder, myotonic dystrophy1. This type of
                                                                        inheritance was characterized by increased expressivity: that is, a
                                                                        decreased age of onset and increased severity in individuals of
                                                                        subsequent generations. A similar hereditary pattern was later
                                                                        observed for other neurological diseases: for example, Huntington’s
                                                                        disease, spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, and several ataxias. The
                                                                        penetrance — that is, the probability that a given mutation results in
                                                                        disease — can also increase in successive generations, as was first
                                                                        demonstrated for fragile X syndrome2. This unusual type of inheritance
                                                                        — characterized by a progressive increase in the expressivity and,
                                                                        sometimes, the penetrance of a mutation as it passes through
                                                                        generations — was called genetic anticipation.




                                                                        The gradual expansion of the mutant gene is your timer counting down to 50 generations. With each generation is gets slightly longer. A (probably neurologic) disease which initially would not manifest within an individual's lifetime begins to show up in the very aged. With each generation, younger individuals develop the disease. At the 50th generation the disease occurs at the time of puberty, and these individuals do not live to bear children.






                                                                        share|improve this answer









                                                                        $endgroup$



                                                                        Tandem repeat mutation disease and genetic anticipation.



                                                                        Some genetic diseases occur earlier and earlier with each generation. Most of these diseases are caused by mutations in genes with tandem repeats. The number of repeats gradually expand, and affected children manifest the disease younger than their parents did.



                                                                        Expandable DNA repeats and human disease. Mirkin SM.




                                                                        One of the central principles of classical (mendelian) genetics is
                                                                        that mutations are stably transmitted between generations. As long ago
                                                                        as 1918, however, a different type of inheritance was described for a
                                                                        human neurological disorder, myotonic dystrophy1. This type of
                                                                        inheritance was characterized by increased expressivity: that is, a
                                                                        decreased age of onset and increased severity in individuals of
                                                                        subsequent generations. A similar hereditary pattern was later
                                                                        observed for other neurological diseases: for example, Huntington’s
                                                                        disease, spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy, and several ataxias. The
                                                                        penetrance — that is, the probability that a given mutation results in
                                                                        disease — can also increase in successive generations, as was first
                                                                        demonstrated for fragile X syndrome2. This unusual type of inheritance
                                                                        — characterized by a progressive increase in the expressivity and,
                                                                        sometimes, the penetrance of a mutation as it passes through
                                                                        generations — was called genetic anticipation.




                                                                        The gradual expansion of the mutant gene is your timer counting down to 50 generations. With each generation is gets slightly longer. A (probably neurologic) disease which initially would not manifest within an individual's lifetime begins to show up in the very aged. With each generation, younger individuals develop the disease. At the 50th generation the disease occurs at the time of puberty, and these individuals do not live to bear children.







                                                                        share|improve this answer












                                                                        share|improve this answer



                                                                        share|improve this answer










                                                                        answered Apr 21 at 20:38









                                                                        WillkWillk

                                                                        124k28230515




                                                                        124k28230515























                                                                            2












                                                                            $begingroup$

                                                                            You can do it by having the first generation of females have a set number of eggs, all of which are transferred to their first offspring (except for the one that generates the offspring). This way each child has one fewer egg available than their parent, and when the eggs run out, the species dies.



                                                                            How it happens biologically: I would say take your pick between the gestation process engulfing all the remaining eggs at the start (and maybe this is necessary in order for gestation to be successful), or at some stage of the growth of the embryo the eggs are transferred in (and again, this is necessary for successful growth). The first might be easier to work up as a biological process without (too much) handwaving.



                                                                            This also gives you some options for twins taking half the egg supply each (or some other percentage) and so having some of the animals unable to produce a full number of generations) and an option to have (mad?) scientists interested in taking eggs from 'weaker' animals in order to extend the generational life of 'stronger' animals.






                                                                            share|improve this answer









                                                                            $endgroup$













                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! Please take the time to read through our tour and visit our help center if you need more information, even if you have done so on other stacks as the rules and culture vary between sites. As a new user to our site, i would encourage you to visit the Sandbox on Worldbuilding Meta if you are unsure if a question is suitable for our site, users over there will help you craft your question. I also encourage you to visit our list of worldbuilding resources for inspiration and help with general questions: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/143606/40609
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – Liam Morris
                                                                              Apr 22 at 10:43












                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              As you point out this could be abused and not truly support a random number of offspring from any individual.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – KalleMP
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:21










                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              @KalleMP the question doesn't ask for a random number, but rather a specific (albeit indeterminate) number. I would not say this is an abuse, but rather a flexibility -- often useful when worldbuilding.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – postmortes
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:35










                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              My comment about abuse was your observation of the mad scientist abuse. The random number problem was that if the parent had 2 children they would only have 24 generations left, with triplets only 16 generations. Subsequent pregnancy they would then have sterile ofspring.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – KalleMP
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:40






                                                                            • 1




                                                                              $begingroup$
                                                                              @KalleMP I apologise for not having understood you :)
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – postmortes
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:43
















                                                                            2












                                                                            $begingroup$

                                                                            You can do it by having the first generation of females have a set number of eggs, all of which are transferred to their first offspring (except for the one that generates the offspring). This way each child has one fewer egg available than their parent, and when the eggs run out, the species dies.



                                                                            How it happens biologically: I would say take your pick between the gestation process engulfing all the remaining eggs at the start (and maybe this is necessary in order for gestation to be successful), or at some stage of the growth of the embryo the eggs are transferred in (and again, this is necessary for successful growth). The first might be easier to work up as a biological process without (too much) handwaving.



                                                                            This also gives you some options for twins taking half the egg supply each (or some other percentage) and so having some of the animals unable to produce a full number of generations) and an option to have (mad?) scientists interested in taking eggs from 'weaker' animals in order to extend the generational life of 'stronger' animals.






                                                                            share|improve this answer









                                                                            $endgroup$













                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! Please take the time to read through our tour and visit our help center if you need more information, even if you have done so on other stacks as the rules and culture vary between sites. As a new user to our site, i would encourage you to visit the Sandbox on Worldbuilding Meta if you are unsure if a question is suitable for our site, users over there will help you craft your question. I also encourage you to visit our list of worldbuilding resources for inspiration and help with general questions: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/143606/40609
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – Liam Morris
                                                                              Apr 22 at 10:43












                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              As you point out this could be abused and not truly support a random number of offspring from any individual.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – KalleMP
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:21










                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              @KalleMP the question doesn't ask for a random number, but rather a specific (albeit indeterminate) number. I would not say this is an abuse, but rather a flexibility -- often useful when worldbuilding.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – postmortes
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:35










                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              My comment about abuse was your observation of the mad scientist abuse. The random number problem was that if the parent had 2 children they would only have 24 generations left, with triplets only 16 generations. Subsequent pregnancy they would then have sterile ofspring.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – KalleMP
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:40






                                                                            • 1




                                                                              $begingroup$
                                                                              @KalleMP I apologise for not having understood you :)
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – postmortes
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:43














                                                                            2












                                                                            2








                                                                            2





                                                                            $begingroup$

                                                                            You can do it by having the first generation of females have a set number of eggs, all of which are transferred to their first offspring (except for the one that generates the offspring). This way each child has one fewer egg available than their parent, and when the eggs run out, the species dies.



                                                                            How it happens biologically: I would say take your pick between the gestation process engulfing all the remaining eggs at the start (and maybe this is necessary in order for gestation to be successful), or at some stage of the growth of the embryo the eggs are transferred in (and again, this is necessary for successful growth). The first might be easier to work up as a biological process without (too much) handwaving.



                                                                            This also gives you some options for twins taking half the egg supply each (or some other percentage) and so having some of the animals unable to produce a full number of generations) and an option to have (mad?) scientists interested in taking eggs from 'weaker' animals in order to extend the generational life of 'stronger' animals.






                                                                            share|improve this answer









                                                                            $endgroup$



                                                                            You can do it by having the first generation of females have a set number of eggs, all of which are transferred to their first offspring (except for the one that generates the offspring). This way each child has one fewer egg available than their parent, and when the eggs run out, the species dies.



                                                                            How it happens biologically: I would say take your pick between the gestation process engulfing all the remaining eggs at the start (and maybe this is necessary in order for gestation to be successful), or at some stage of the growth of the embryo the eggs are transferred in (and again, this is necessary for successful growth). The first might be easier to work up as a biological process without (too much) handwaving.



                                                                            This also gives you some options for twins taking half the egg supply each (or some other percentage) and so having some of the animals unable to produce a full number of generations) and an option to have (mad?) scientists interested in taking eggs from 'weaker' animals in order to extend the generational life of 'stronger' animals.







                                                                            share|improve this answer












                                                                            share|improve this answer



                                                                            share|improve this answer










                                                                            answered Apr 22 at 10:30









                                                                            postmortespostmortes

                                                                            1213




                                                                            1213












                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! Please take the time to read through our tour and visit our help center if you need more information, even if you have done so on other stacks as the rules and culture vary between sites. As a new user to our site, i would encourage you to visit the Sandbox on Worldbuilding Meta if you are unsure if a question is suitable for our site, users over there will help you craft your question. I also encourage you to visit our list of worldbuilding resources for inspiration and help with general questions: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/143606/40609
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – Liam Morris
                                                                              Apr 22 at 10:43












                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              As you point out this could be abused and not truly support a random number of offspring from any individual.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – KalleMP
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:21










                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              @KalleMP the question doesn't ask for a random number, but rather a specific (albeit indeterminate) number. I would not say this is an abuse, but rather a flexibility -- often useful when worldbuilding.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – postmortes
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:35










                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              My comment about abuse was your observation of the mad scientist abuse. The random number problem was that if the parent had 2 children they would only have 24 generations left, with triplets only 16 generations. Subsequent pregnancy they would then have sterile ofspring.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – KalleMP
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:40






                                                                            • 1




                                                                              $begingroup$
                                                                              @KalleMP I apologise for not having understood you :)
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – postmortes
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:43


















                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! Please take the time to read through our tour and visit our help center if you need more information, even if you have done so on other stacks as the rules and culture vary between sites. As a new user to our site, i would encourage you to visit the Sandbox on Worldbuilding Meta if you are unsure if a question is suitable for our site, users over there will help you craft your question. I also encourage you to visit our list of worldbuilding resources for inspiration and help with general questions: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/143606/40609
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – Liam Morris
                                                                              Apr 22 at 10:43












                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              As you point out this could be abused and not truly support a random number of offspring from any individual.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – KalleMP
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:21










                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              @KalleMP the question doesn't ask for a random number, but rather a specific (albeit indeterminate) number. I would not say this is an abuse, but rather a flexibility -- often useful when worldbuilding.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – postmortes
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:35










                                                                            • $begingroup$
                                                                              My comment about abuse was your observation of the mad scientist abuse. The random number problem was that if the parent had 2 children they would only have 24 generations left, with triplets only 16 generations. Subsequent pregnancy they would then have sterile ofspring.
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – KalleMP
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:40






                                                                            • 1




                                                                              $begingroup$
                                                                              @KalleMP I apologise for not having understood you :)
                                                                              $endgroup$
                                                                              – postmortes
                                                                              Apr 22 at 11:43
















                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! Please take the time to read through our tour and visit our help center if you need more information, even if you have done so on other stacks as the rules and culture vary between sites. As a new user to our site, i would encourage you to visit the Sandbox on Worldbuilding Meta if you are unsure if a question is suitable for our site, users over there will help you craft your question. I also encourage you to visit our list of worldbuilding resources for inspiration and help with general questions: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/143606/40609
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – Liam Morris
                                                                            Apr 22 at 10:43






                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            Hi, welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! Please take the time to read through our tour and visit our help center if you need more information, even if you have done so on other stacks as the rules and culture vary between sites. As a new user to our site, i would encourage you to visit the Sandbox on Worldbuilding Meta if you are unsure if a question is suitable for our site, users over there will help you craft your question. I also encourage you to visit our list of worldbuilding resources for inspiration and help with general questions: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/143606/40609
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – Liam Morris
                                                                            Apr 22 at 10:43














                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            As you point out this could be abused and not truly support a random number of offspring from any individual.
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – KalleMP
                                                                            Apr 22 at 11:21




                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            As you point out this could be abused and not truly support a random number of offspring from any individual.
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – KalleMP
                                                                            Apr 22 at 11:21












                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            @KalleMP the question doesn't ask for a random number, but rather a specific (albeit indeterminate) number. I would not say this is an abuse, but rather a flexibility -- often useful when worldbuilding.
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – postmortes
                                                                            Apr 22 at 11:35




                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            @KalleMP the question doesn't ask for a random number, but rather a specific (albeit indeterminate) number. I would not say this is an abuse, but rather a flexibility -- often useful when worldbuilding.
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – postmortes
                                                                            Apr 22 at 11:35












                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            My comment about abuse was your observation of the mad scientist abuse. The random number problem was that if the parent had 2 children they would only have 24 generations left, with triplets only 16 generations. Subsequent pregnancy they would then have sterile ofspring.
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – KalleMP
                                                                            Apr 22 at 11:40




                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            My comment about abuse was your observation of the mad scientist abuse. The random number problem was that if the parent had 2 children they would only have 24 generations left, with triplets only 16 generations. Subsequent pregnancy they would then have sterile ofspring.
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – KalleMP
                                                                            Apr 22 at 11:40




                                                                            1




                                                                            1




                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            @KalleMP I apologise for not having understood you :)
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – postmortes
                                                                            Apr 22 at 11:43




                                                                            $begingroup$
                                                                            @KalleMP I apologise for not having understood you :)
                                                                            $endgroup$
                                                                            – postmortes
                                                                            Apr 22 at 11:43











                                                                            1












                                                                            $begingroup$

                                                                            Express mtDNA-specific cytidine deaminase in oocyte mitochondria.



                                                                            Mitochondria are cellular organelles which, among other things, convert hydrocarbons like glucose into fuel that the cell can use, typically ATP. Mitochondria actually contain their own DNA, called mtDNA, which is separate from the cell's nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria originate from bacteria, they lack the sophisticated DNA protection and repair mechanisms provided to nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria are only passed on by the mother (the ones in sperm do not make it to the oocyte), mutations can build up over generations. This is especially likely given the fact that the internal environment of the mitochondrion is highly toxic to DNA due to high concentrations of free radicles. To prevent this, oocyte mitochondria are kept in a highly inactive state, limiting DNA damage.



                                                                            So... what if you could speed up the mutation rate of mtDNA? There is a class of enzymes called cytidine deaminases which mutate nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. It converts a nucleic base called cytidine to uridine, causing a mutation. This mutation is quickly corrected in nuclear DNA, but not in mtDNA. If you were to express a slow-acting cytidine deaminase in the mitochondria of maternal oocytes (egg cells), then over time, sufficient mutations would accumulate in the mitochondria of offspring that the embryos would eventually become non-viable. Because these mutations would be passed along in each generation, there would be a gradual reduction in viability.






                                                                            share|improve this answer









                                                                            $endgroup$


















                                                                              1












                                                                              $begingroup$

                                                                              Express mtDNA-specific cytidine deaminase in oocyte mitochondria.



                                                                              Mitochondria are cellular organelles which, among other things, convert hydrocarbons like glucose into fuel that the cell can use, typically ATP. Mitochondria actually contain their own DNA, called mtDNA, which is separate from the cell's nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria originate from bacteria, they lack the sophisticated DNA protection and repair mechanisms provided to nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria are only passed on by the mother (the ones in sperm do not make it to the oocyte), mutations can build up over generations. This is especially likely given the fact that the internal environment of the mitochondrion is highly toxic to DNA due to high concentrations of free radicles. To prevent this, oocyte mitochondria are kept in a highly inactive state, limiting DNA damage.



                                                                              So... what if you could speed up the mutation rate of mtDNA? There is a class of enzymes called cytidine deaminases which mutate nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. It converts a nucleic base called cytidine to uridine, causing a mutation. This mutation is quickly corrected in nuclear DNA, but not in mtDNA. If you were to express a slow-acting cytidine deaminase in the mitochondria of maternal oocytes (egg cells), then over time, sufficient mutations would accumulate in the mitochondria of offspring that the embryos would eventually become non-viable. Because these mutations would be passed along in each generation, there would be a gradual reduction in viability.






                                                                              share|improve this answer









                                                                              $endgroup$
















                                                                                1












                                                                                1








                                                                                1





                                                                                $begingroup$

                                                                                Express mtDNA-specific cytidine deaminase in oocyte mitochondria.



                                                                                Mitochondria are cellular organelles which, among other things, convert hydrocarbons like glucose into fuel that the cell can use, typically ATP. Mitochondria actually contain their own DNA, called mtDNA, which is separate from the cell's nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria originate from bacteria, they lack the sophisticated DNA protection and repair mechanisms provided to nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria are only passed on by the mother (the ones in sperm do not make it to the oocyte), mutations can build up over generations. This is especially likely given the fact that the internal environment of the mitochondrion is highly toxic to DNA due to high concentrations of free radicles. To prevent this, oocyte mitochondria are kept in a highly inactive state, limiting DNA damage.



                                                                                So... what if you could speed up the mutation rate of mtDNA? There is a class of enzymes called cytidine deaminases which mutate nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. It converts a nucleic base called cytidine to uridine, causing a mutation. This mutation is quickly corrected in nuclear DNA, but not in mtDNA. If you were to express a slow-acting cytidine deaminase in the mitochondria of maternal oocytes (egg cells), then over time, sufficient mutations would accumulate in the mitochondria of offspring that the embryos would eventually become non-viable. Because these mutations would be passed along in each generation, there would be a gradual reduction in viability.






                                                                                share|improve this answer









                                                                                $endgroup$



                                                                                Express mtDNA-specific cytidine deaminase in oocyte mitochondria.



                                                                                Mitochondria are cellular organelles which, among other things, convert hydrocarbons like glucose into fuel that the cell can use, typically ATP. Mitochondria actually contain their own DNA, called mtDNA, which is separate from the cell's nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria originate from bacteria, they lack the sophisticated DNA protection and repair mechanisms provided to nuclear DNA. Because mitochondria are only passed on by the mother (the ones in sperm do not make it to the oocyte), mutations can build up over generations. This is especially likely given the fact that the internal environment of the mitochondrion is highly toxic to DNA due to high concentrations of free radicles. To prevent this, oocyte mitochondria are kept in a highly inactive state, limiting DNA damage.



                                                                                So... what if you could speed up the mutation rate of mtDNA? There is a class of enzymes called cytidine deaminases which mutate nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. It converts a nucleic base called cytidine to uridine, causing a mutation. This mutation is quickly corrected in nuclear DNA, but not in mtDNA. If you were to express a slow-acting cytidine deaminase in the mitochondria of maternal oocytes (egg cells), then over time, sufficient mutations would accumulate in the mitochondria of offspring that the embryos would eventually become non-viable. Because these mutations would be passed along in each generation, there would be a gradual reduction in viability.







                                                                                share|improve this answer












                                                                                share|improve this answer



                                                                                share|improve this answer










                                                                                answered Apr 23 at 8:27









                                                                                forestforest

                                                                                1,291420




                                                                                1,291420























                                                                                    0












                                                                                    $begingroup$

                                                                                    Polyploidy.



                                                                                    I don't think the telomere approach will work at all. If it did, we would have died out. Or rather, would never have existed. Short telomeres are a normal thing, happens to everybody (except the ones who die in an accident), yet nature "just makes it" so gametes are good to go anyway. Sperm from a 100 year old is, well, not precisely as good as sperm from a 17 year old in terms of numbers and mobility and such, but... whatever. It still works, and whatever comes out is a perfectly good individual with perfectly good telomers.



                                                                                    Now, polyploidy might be a better strategy. While it can be somewhat troublesome on higher animals, it's a well-established thing for plants, some frogs and amphibian stuff, a couple of marine vertebrae, and some worms.



                                                                                    If you have a population of, say, 2n males and 4n females, the offspring will be 3n. For a 3n individual, undergoing meiosis is, uh, troublesome. Because 3 doesn't divide by 2 so well.

                                                                                    So, that's that. No gametes, no offspring. Unless you do it like wild dandelion, which despite being unable to reproduce just tells you "Yeah, you know what, f... off!" and simply goes agamosperm, reproducing anyway. But for an animal, that's reasonably unlikely to happen.



                                                                                    The real challenge is that you want not 2 or 3, but 50 generations which are OK, so you would need to find a number which only results in an odd pairing after 50 generations. That's probably a tough one.

                                                                                    It's fiction though, so... got some leeway, I'd say. Might just say "poly" and not mention how many.






                                                                                    share|improve this answer









                                                                                    $endgroup$


















                                                                                      0












                                                                                      $begingroup$

                                                                                      Polyploidy.



                                                                                      I don't think the telomere approach will work at all. If it did, we would have died out. Or rather, would never have existed. Short telomeres are a normal thing, happens to everybody (except the ones who die in an accident), yet nature "just makes it" so gametes are good to go anyway. Sperm from a 100 year old is, well, not precisely as good as sperm from a 17 year old in terms of numbers and mobility and such, but... whatever. It still works, and whatever comes out is a perfectly good individual with perfectly good telomers.



                                                                                      Now, polyploidy might be a better strategy. While it can be somewhat troublesome on higher animals, it's a well-established thing for plants, some frogs and amphibian stuff, a couple of marine vertebrae, and some worms.



                                                                                      If you have a population of, say, 2n males and 4n females, the offspring will be 3n. For a 3n individual, undergoing meiosis is, uh, troublesome. Because 3 doesn't divide by 2 so well.

                                                                                      So, that's that. No gametes, no offspring. Unless you do it like wild dandelion, which despite being unable to reproduce just tells you "Yeah, you know what, f... off!" and simply goes agamosperm, reproducing anyway. But for an animal, that's reasonably unlikely to happen.



                                                                                      The real challenge is that you want not 2 or 3, but 50 generations which are OK, so you would need to find a number which only results in an odd pairing after 50 generations. That's probably a tough one.

                                                                                      It's fiction though, so... got some leeway, I'd say. Might just say "poly" and not mention how many.






                                                                                      share|improve this answer









                                                                                      $endgroup$
















                                                                                        0












                                                                                        0








                                                                                        0





                                                                                        $begingroup$

                                                                                        Polyploidy.



                                                                                        I don't think the telomere approach will work at all. If it did, we would have died out. Or rather, would never have existed. Short telomeres are a normal thing, happens to everybody (except the ones who die in an accident), yet nature "just makes it" so gametes are good to go anyway. Sperm from a 100 year old is, well, not precisely as good as sperm from a 17 year old in terms of numbers and mobility and such, but... whatever. It still works, and whatever comes out is a perfectly good individual with perfectly good telomers.



                                                                                        Now, polyploidy might be a better strategy. While it can be somewhat troublesome on higher animals, it's a well-established thing for plants, some frogs and amphibian stuff, a couple of marine vertebrae, and some worms.



                                                                                        If you have a population of, say, 2n males and 4n females, the offspring will be 3n. For a 3n individual, undergoing meiosis is, uh, troublesome. Because 3 doesn't divide by 2 so well.

                                                                                        So, that's that. No gametes, no offspring. Unless you do it like wild dandelion, which despite being unable to reproduce just tells you "Yeah, you know what, f... off!" and simply goes agamosperm, reproducing anyway. But for an animal, that's reasonably unlikely to happen.



                                                                                        The real challenge is that you want not 2 or 3, but 50 generations which are OK, so you would need to find a number which only results in an odd pairing after 50 generations. That's probably a tough one.

                                                                                        It's fiction though, so... got some leeway, I'd say. Might just say "poly" and not mention how many.






                                                                                        share|improve this answer









                                                                                        $endgroup$



                                                                                        Polyploidy.



                                                                                        I don't think the telomere approach will work at all. If it did, we would have died out. Or rather, would never have existed. Short telomeres are a normal thing, happens to everybody (except the ones who die in an accident), yet nature "just makes it" so gametes are good to go anyway. Sperm from a 100 year old is, well, not precisely as good as sperm from a 17 year old in terms of numbers and mobility and such, but... whatever. It still works, and whatever comes out is a perfectly good individual with perfectly good telomers.



                                                                                        Now, polyploidy might be a better strategy. While it can be somewhat troublesome on higher animals, it's a well-established thing for plants, some frogs and amphibian stuff, a couple of marine vertebrae, and some worms.



                                                                                        If you have a population of, say, 2n males and 4n females, the offspring will be 3n. For a 3n individual, undergoing meiosis is, uh, troublesome. Because 3 doesn't divide by 2 so well.

                                                                                        So, that's that. No gametes, no offspring. Unless you do it like wild dandelion, which despite being unable to reproduce just tells you "Yeah, you know what, f... off!" and simply goes agamosperm, reproducing anyway. But for an animal, that's reasonably unlikely to happen.



                                                                                        The real challenge is that you want not 2 or 3, but 50 generations which are OK, so you would need to find a number which only results in an odd pairing after 50 generations. That's probably a tough one.

                                                                                        It's fiction though, so... got some leeway, I'd say. Might just say "poly" and not mention how many.







                                                                                        share|improve this answer












                                                                                        share|improve this answer



                                                                                        share|improve this answer










                                                                                        answered Apr 22 at 10:04









                                                                                        DamonDamon

                                                                                        2,506410




                                                                                        2,506410






























                                                                                            draft saved

                                                                                            draft discarded




















































                                                                                            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                                                                                            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                                                                            But avoid



                                                                                            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                                                                            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                                                                            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                                                                            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                                                                            draft saved


                                                                                            draft discarded














                                                                                            StackExchange.ready(
                                                                                            function () {
                                                                                            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144477%2fhow-to-make-an-animal-which-can-only-breed-for-a-certain-number-of-generations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                                                                            }
                                                                                            );

                                                                                            Post as a guest















                                                                                            Required, but never shown





















































                                                                                            Required, but never shown














                                                                                            Required, but never shown












                                                                                            Required, but never shown







                                                                                            Required, but never shown

































                                                                                            Required, but never shown














                                                                                            Required, but never shown












                                                                                            Required, but never shown







                                                                                            Required, but never shown







                                                                                            Popular posts from this blog

                                                                                            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                                                                            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                                                                            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029