|
1-2 of 2 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by Caduceus on September 20, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Danny Smith wrote a thread on this site asking for advice on out crossing snakes. He received sound advice but the conversation quickly degenerated into an argument over whether or not hybridization is ethical. I am starting this thread to address the question directly, this way Dan's page is no longer a war zone and people can come here to talk about whether or not they fell hybridization is ethical and to Dan's thread to talk about breeding techniques. I have copied and pasted the relevant parts of the dialect so that the conversation can continue where it left off.
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
Reply by AquaHerp on September 4, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
I am not starting an argument. My own "opinion" is that I wonder about those who feel that the original snake is not good enough.
As far as them breeding in the wild, I have heard of one report of these two species from the wild and that one was questionable in the end.
RE: Come on guys(little help here)
Reply by
Caduceus on September 18, 2011
Danny, it is important to remember that Hybridization is a form of evolution and that when you practice artificial selection through any means you are practicing science, creating new species, and improving the line of snakes you own by increasing genetic diversity. Yes, hybridization does have its drawbacks, many of the pregnancies fail, some of the offspring maybe infertile, and you may get a unique animal about which little is understood. However, when hybridization is successful it is the most rewarding thing you can experience. Your are literally watching the evolution of life in front of you. Not to mention that you have just created a totally unique animal to study and understand that only you have. This animal may have physiological, genetic, or evolutionary advantages over its biological parents (hybrid vigor), it may also have scientific vigor in the sense that it may be able to produce a new venom that can create a more potent anti-venom, can fight cancer, etc. The scientific possibilities are really endless. I can think of 100's of studies you can conduct just off of the top of my head. The people in the zoological sphere who consider themselves "purist" are not taken serious by any professional zoologist as all intelligent zoologist recognize that the pro's of hybridization out way the cons. Purist are usually outspoken and vocal however their ideas are anti science, anti evolution, anti life, and anti intellectual. No professional zoologist would advocate for stunting or retarding the evolution of a genus by supporting genetic erosion and undermining genetic diversity; and since advocating for the stunting or retarding of a genus by stopping it from out crossing is no different than advocating for the genetic erosion of a species by stopping it from randomly generating mutations that act on natural selection it is only a matter of time before the idea of purism falls into complete obscurity. In fact, what purist are actually advocating for is senseless cruelty and abuse because they denying animals in captivity the ability to adapt and change over time and this is no different than trying to keep baby alligators in 10 gallon tanks their whole life and seeing what happens. Denying an animal the room it needs to grow is the abstract equivalent of, and no different from, denying it the need to diversify.
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by Caduceus on September 18, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
In fact, the idea that evolution offends some people is so absurd that it actually intrigues me. So if there is any purist in the room I have to ask, what is it about evolution that offends you ? Do slow gradual morphological changes offend you ? Do genetic mutations offend you ? Does the dramatic changes the occur when to organisms outcross offend you ? Does natural selection offend you ? What about artificial selection ? I honestly want to know. What is it about evolution that offends you ?
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by JHarrison on September 18, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
Ray, your misguided ideas about evolution offend me.
Now, evolution itself? MAHVELOUS!
You are greatly oversimplifying the idea of hybrid vigor. In fact, there are typically barriers of some sort that prevent hybridization in the wild. In captivity, there is no evolution occurring because the animal is no longer in its natural habitat, instead it is in captivity. Therefore breeding in captivity is artificial selection. There are cases when the two may combine, but stating that hybridizing Bitis in captivity is evolution is complete bunk. Also, even if the venom did have some magical anti-cancer properties, it would be useless in research because the likelihood of reproducing the same venom would be very small. Which combination of genes resulted in the amazing venom? No way to know and no way to genetically engineer that at this point in time. Likewise, how exactly would any antivenin produced from a hybrid be useful? MAYBE there are a few hybrids here and there in the wild (I remain mostly unconvinced of this) but certainly people are bitten much much much more frequently by the actual species in question than by any sort of hybrid.
Danny, I personally don't understand why people want to hybridize, to me it is too much like playing God, which for me is saying something since I am an atheist. However, it is more important to me that animals in captivity are properly cared for, and if your guys are healthy that would be enough to make me happy, even if we disagree. A polite note to you regarding wanting people to respond to your posts: I for one would be more likely to comment if you used capital letters. My eyes get tired reading the internets and lack of clearly visible sentences is tiring. I feel the same way about very terrible lolspeak.
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by CHRIS on September 18, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
Danny How do you feel about your neighbor makeing out with a spider monkey,would that not be a new design in evolution? Chris
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by CHRIS on September 18, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
Hey Jim how is the B.Carib doing ? Take care Chris
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by Caduceus on September 19, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
Your argument is very subjective and the biased and your reasoning is flawed. First of all, to claim that "in captivity, there is no evolution occurring" is an equivocation and a lie and I am surprised that an atheist would know so little about evolution. Evolution is always occurring, even if you isolated a distinct population of animals over time they would eventually begin to mutate and change. This is true no matter where the animal is being held and there is no way to stop it from happening. Artificial selection is not defined as simply "breeding animals in captivity." Artificial selection is the science of selectively breeding for certain traits, better traits, or combinations of traits. Instead of nature deciding what traits get to be passed on (natural selection) humans decide what traits get to be passed on( artificial selection.) The only real difference between artificial selection and natural selection is that in the wild animals that have mutations that are detrimental to, or do not aid in, their survival, die off. So nature dictates what traits get to be passed on and the direction in which animals evolve and morph genetically and physiologically. As where in captivity humans decide which animals get to breed and which traits get to be passed on based on what we want out of that animal. Is it really relevant whether or not an ice age causes animals to change or a human does ? I think not, and since the natural habitats of most snakes are being depleted and destroyed at a rapid rate, and that there are now some species of snake such as Crotalus durissus unicolor that are only found in captivity, I see no reason why breeders shouldn't breed snakes for traits that make them more marketable since captivity may be the last chance some of these animals have from keeping their names off of the extinction list. It makes plenty of sense that breeders breed snakes that are more docile and colorful since in captivity something like a ball python doesn't have to be the same color as a leaf to survive. If a genetically striped albino pied ball python gives people more incentive to go out and buy more ball pythons, breed more ball pythons, and take better care of their ball pythons (some of these snakes get treated better than I do) then evolving into a more docile aesthetically pleasing specimen is not only in a snakes interest but has become part of its evolution as well. The natural time line would go something like this: humans evolved intelligence, left a state of nature and entered into a state of society, began to keep animals in captivity, and then animals began evolving to live in captivity. Living in a state of captivity or society as opposed to a state of nature has many advantages as well. However, Bickering about whether or not it is ethical for an animal to change by out crossing or mutating is ridiculous, and if you can get a more desirable trait by out crossing there is literally no reason not to since you cannot stop a population of animals from mutating and developing new traits to begin with. Just breeding a population of animals in captivity with no aim is not artificial selection, in fact it's not selection at all, it's just negligence, and by choosing to not nurture, aid, and direct the development of a population you are playing God because you are consciously choosing to stunt, retard, and impede the development of the said population; which actually sounds more like playing Satan to me, but then again you did say you were an atheist correct ? So I am sure you find the idea of playing Satan very appealing.
Secondly, if you bred a hybrid population of snakes, and that population had all of the traits that you wanted and thus became a breed that only you produced, it would be easy to continue producing a hybrid venom that may be useful to science since all you would have to do is continuing milking and breeding the population of snakes that you have. Seems kind of like common sense. In an article by science daily entitled, "Snake Venom As Therapeutic Treatment Of Cancer" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070415133122.htm) illustrates my point exactly. If rattle snake venom has cancer fighting properties who is to say that different strains of this venom from hybrid snakes would not enhance of benefit those properties. In addition the scientific benefits of hybridization may not just come from the venom snakes produce, there could be other benefits as well that stem for their general anatomy and physiology. That might be immune to certain viruses or disease and this may have a wide range of implications for humans or they may just have unique features that could have a wide range of implications for humans. There could be other more practical benefits as well. Who is to say hybrid rattle snakes wouldn't produce longer lasting better feeling boots ?
Thirdly there are plenty of hybrids that have been documented to occur naturally in the wild: the grizzly polar bear hybrid, the guinea fowl x peafowl hybrid (which is actually an example of an interfamilial hybrid which is the crossing of two different families as opposed to the crossing of a genera, intergeneric, genus, interspecific, subspecies, intra-specific, or even a different order, interordinal), the spotted owl hybrid , and the naturally-occurring hybrid porpoise. In addition natural hybrids may have major advantages over their "pure" counterparts. One article entitled, "Hybrids May Thrive Where Parents Fear to Tread" states, "some combinations might enable hybrids to adapt to conditions in which neither parent may fare as well. Several such examples are now known from nature. Furthermore, DNA analysis is now allowing biologists to better decipher the histories of species and to detect past hybridization events that have contributed new genes and capabilities to various kinds of organisms including, it now appears, ourselves" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/science/14creatures.html). I addition to the benefits of natural hybridization selective breeding of domestic animals such as dogs and cats have given us excellent breeds of animals and I see no reason why we should not do the same with snakes. The Doberman is a cross between many different k-9's, and it is in the top 10 breeds of dogs. Why shouldn't we do the same with snakes ? And again I have to ask, why are you against evolution ? What I have laid out here isn't just my "misguided idea's about evolution" it is literally the text book definition and science of evolution that you would get from a college class. Believe me, I know, I have a masters degree in biology.
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by CHRIS on September 19, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
Dexter I appreciate your opinion, but in all reality by trying to change what God has created is foolish ,can we improve on his work. I dont think so. Almost every thing man touches we destroy.Evoloution will happen at its own pace.If we feel there is some magic cure out there derived from genetic alteration,how many species should be sacrificed tell we say enough is enough? Also C.D.Unicolor still exsists in the wild.And to acheive a better pair of boots,sounds like a very poor argument ,dont you think really? And the ideal of a Masters or for that matter a P.H.D. makeing someone qualified as an athority is a weak argument. Let nature be the way God created it,and protect it for what it is,we cant improve it. Chris
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by AquaHerp on September 19, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
So, you are a degreed zoologist? If so, where in the hell did you get your degree? Your hybrid theory is at best laughable.
There is no real research value in hybrid animals. None. That was undoubtedly the most ridiculous and amateur series of horse shit that I have read in days.
Where do these people come from?
DH
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by AquaHerp on September 19, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
Also....you have absolutely no idea of venom and how it is applied in biomedical research. The VENOM of a snakes is basically worthless bio medically as a whole. Venom contains hundreds, possibly thousands of molecules each acting in its own way. Researchers look at them individually as to how they might be applied to a drug. The rest of the venom is not even in the variable. Hybridizing two snakes would have absolutely no value whatsoever to biomedical studies. As a matter of fact, since we look at these venoms from known localities, a hybrid captive snake would be less than worthless to science. A hybrid is not going to create a new protein. The offspring will have venom traits of both parents. We have known this for many years.
I was amused at your attempt to go at your opinion from a "professional zoologist" standpoint. However, your information shows that you have no real background in this realm whatsoever. Now, if you would have said "this is my opinion and this is my angle" perhaps it might have gone over better. But to bash others and not even know your subject matter was a poor direction to jump.
DH
RE: Come on guys(little help here) Reply
by AquaHerp on September 19, 2011
Mail this to a friend!
And....... Jim and I are both "professionals" that operate daily in the "zoological sphere". I oversee many programs for endangered species where as our "scientific" goal is to maintain genetic sustainability for the next 200 years. At no point is hybridization taken into account. Funny, your own argument was that "purist" are guilty of genetic erosion. I find this odd, as hybridization is the biggest cause of genetic erosion! Outbreeding is a great thing; it keeps genetics from bottlenecking....but within the same species.
I did get a kick out of your opinion. As an "opinion" I can even respect it. Please don't try to dress it up as science. It fails on every level. What you are doing is what I call "the squid tactic". Trying to hide behind a cloud of ink does not make your stand any less venerable
|
| |
|
RE: Is Hybridization Ethical ?
|
Reply
|
|
by Caduceus on September 20, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Second of all Aquaherp, my argument is not an opinion, it is at best a fact, and a least a serious scientific theory. Every component of my argument, from my definitions of natural and artificial selection, to my evidence of naturally occurring hybrids, can be researched and shown to be text book quality hard facts. I explained all of my ideas in detail and backed them by science. You are just making aimless claims with no evidence to back up any of the things you say . And unfortunately for you "spreading ink" is not a recognized logical fallacy, but appealing to emotion is. Therefore, when instead of facts, you use persuasive language to develop the foundation of your argument, an appeal to an emotion based argument is made and no substantial proof offered is. Thus, none of the things you say really matter and even if they did they wouldn't be recognized by serious academics because serious scholars s do not take appeals to emotion serious.
BTW, will the animals that you have held in captivity and isolation for 200 years even be able to return to their native environments after 200 years in captivity ? Will their immune system be able to handle the environmental changes that can happen over a 200 year period ? Will they still be fit to live in that environment ? Will their native habitat even differ genetically and physiologically from the captive specimens ? How will you deal with the mutations that your captive population generates ? still be there ? Will the wild specimens begin the Will you weed out the animals that have genetic deficiencies as nature would ? You will propagate the animals that are better suited, or would have a better chance in their natural environment ? Who will decide which mutations are the beneficial ones ? Is it ethical to breed captive specimens to resemble their wild counterparts ? Have you even thought about any of this ? If Genetic erosion is a process whereby an already limited gene pool is depleted further how does hybridization, which ads genetic diversity to a population, cause genetic erosion ? How come you claimed that there is no biomedical significance to snake venom and that I had no idea what I was talking about yet I was well versed on the subject because I have read and researched scholarly articles on this topic that you did not even know exist ? I have an intellectual justification for my talking point that hybridization is ethical in that it is, by definition, evolution - but what is your intellectual justification for purism ? If animals in the wild are constantly changing and adapting to survive is purism even possible ? Is it ethical to stunt, retard, and impede the evolution of a population just to keep the population the same as it was in this era ? Even if there was no "research value for hybrids" which is either a blunt lie or naive mindlessness it is still justifiable in the sense that it is evolution and that it may make snakes more marketable which will increase the numbers of their captive population- but again how can purism address and of these issues ? How can purism help animals adapt to captivity like hybridization can ? Is it ethical to not adapt captive animals to captivity ? Should we not adapt wild animals to the wild ? Should breeders not domesticate and make better suited for captivity the animals they sell to people ? Are you just insane or do you just fixate and obsess over ridiculous ideas ? P.S. I am not against pure breed snakes, I just support the production of new and better breeds, especially when it comes to the propagation of these animals in the private sector. In my opinion a pure breed native Atheris Hispida is one of the most beautiful snakes on this planet and is completely irreplaceable, however, I also understand that a generation or two of squam blood to make them more viable in captivity would not hurt, nor am I delusional and try to deny that this hybridization would have a benefit for the captive species as a whole but possibly even for the wild species.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
