[chuck_the_tv_out]

"Which means that at some point almost all cheetahs were killed, and the existing cheetahs are descendents of a very few related individuals"

the way you take a fleeting assumption based on nothing and state it as if it were fact is absolutely shocking. and unfortunately is very represntative of evolutionism.

If a real scientist were to pull random thoughts from their posterior & call it fact they would be drummed out of town. Not so for the evolutionist.

[muawiyah]

Gotta' be real careful with the Cheetah thing. The fact they are so closely related at the molecular level suggests that when it comes to the Southern coasts of Africa, India and Australia, there may have been a Great Flood which could reach the height of mountains at about the time the first big Antarctic meltdown began circa 15,000 years ago.

[Iscool]

"Which means that at some point almost all cheetahs were killed, and the existing cheetahs are descendents of a very few related individuals"

Interesting concept...But wouldn't all Cheetahs have come from one original source, one Cheetah???

Or could it have been many butterflies that turned into many Cheetahs allowing for a variation in DNA???

But then maybe one butterfly turned into a Cheetah and one red-toed frog turned into a Cheetah and one shrew turned into a Cheetah...And this would account for a diversity of DNA...

Maybe some Cheetahs turned into blue-birds...Maybe ought to check some blue-birds for some corresponding Cheetah DNA...

Might want to check some Walleyes as well...Some of the Cheetahs could have turned into fish...