Jin, I could talk for years on this tpoic, because it is my background and profession, but I think itn would bore or irritate everyone to tears.
Here is why we cannot take domestication of animals as a comparable analogy. Domestication of a breed takes a relatively long period. With cats, dogs, livestock, etc etc etc, these animals were not created in the past 2 years from their wild ancestors, they have been selectively bred over many centuries to be what they are today. However, at the beginning of the domestication process, there were numerous and significant drawbacks. Animals that did not fit the mold, animals that wre biologically disfunctional, animals which could not survive. These were lost from the gene pool. Over the past few ecnturies, the "gene pool" has stabilized to create what it is today. That is where there is a BIG difference in what we are talking about. With domestication, the early iosues have come and gone. But many of these problems are still here. For example, we all know certain dog breeds are susceptible to some characteristic ailments (hip dysplasia, blindness, deafness, etc). These are results of inbreeding within the breed, and proliferating negative to promote the positive. And this is the positive aspect of this domestication. You can imagine, in the beginning, there were far more issues.
I am in no way saying that inbreeding is acceptable in any realm. It is a defeating bioloigical principle. It will not sustain species over time, just weaken it to promote extinction.
Artificial sl;ecetion is not a bad thing, provided it is not partnered up with selective breeding, as well. For example, I wish that ORA would just breed genetically distant clowns, and the ones they naturally got to produce misbars (which is a bad example, because it is a another inbreeding telltale), hunchbacks, nakeds, picassos, glow in the darks, whatever, and select those for survival, not breeding. However, once one of those pops uo, ORA gets $$ in their eyes, and pair them up, despite the relatedness, and despite the health consequences that may show up. They will sell, so they breed them. Of course, I have no evidence of this really, I am just connecting the dots, and saying fish that show this type of characteristics are quite commonly extremely inbred.
With my background, it is impossible for me to admit and support any type of inbreeding, as it has no benefit on the species, or individuals as a whole.
Bored yet?
FutureInterest;127203 wrote: I really don't understand why you feel that selective breeding is such a "dubious and questionable tactic" when applied to clownfish. I have to assume you are just as adamant about selective breeding as we apply it to horses, cats, dogs, and all other animals we choose to breed.
Earlier you chose to make a distinction between "wild animals" and "domesticated animals". It seems you are implying that selective breeding with domesticated animals is fine but not with a wild animal... because the parameters are "different". It doesn't seem logical to me for you to make a distinction there. Obviously all animals at one point were "wild". We domesticate them with selective breeding as we breed them for traits that we desire. It's the same with the clownfish, we took wild clownfish and we are breeding them for specific traits we desire. So what if they are "wild" that really doesn't change the nature of what we are trying to accomplish.
Take wolves for example. We have been selectively breeding dogs for various different traits and now look at all the diversity we have. We have hundreds of different types of dog, all of which can serve different needs and different people as workers or guardians or loyal companions. If the world felt the same way as you towards selective breeding then all we would have is wolves
. As such, wouldn't it be neat if in a few hundred years we have a variety of different and interesting clownfish? I'm all for the blue clownfish or glowing one! :yay:
