>Subject: Selective Breeding
>
>Darrin,
<snip introduction>
>
>However, I do know some about basic genetics, and it's important, I
>think, to point out that no genetic defects are INTRODUCED by breeding.
>They are exacerbated by breeding, but they have always been there.
 
um... ok..  reasonably true..  genetic defects are not introduced by
breeding.  ( in general).
 
However, my point being, that after thousands of years of careful
selective breeding, wherein any undesirable traits where carefully "bred
out".  we now find ourselves faced with breeders who do not seem to care
about any of the desirable traits, accept for colors..  i.e.: no concern
of deafness, or, docility, or health issues..  as long as the ferret is
"cute" and they can sell them..
 
secondly...genetic defects are constantly "introduced" to all living
things, as a result of many things, BUT since the advent of mankind's
manipulation of breeding lines and inbreeding, many genetic defects have
been "introduced" simply because of "inbreeding.."
 
Indeed, inbreeding is one of the major influences on defects..
 
Yes, we can all agree that when a breeder (of anything) somehow gets a
"sport", or, otherwise unplanned for "spontaneous" Trait, in an animal,
that it is indeed may not "introduced" by breeding, and could just be a
fluke of nature, BUT, instead that fluke trait is then capitalized upon
by the breeders, to introduce that particular trait into the existing
bloodline.... this is why the common wolf, now has hundreds and thousands
of differing subspecies that we called dogs, all manipulated genetically
by humans.... flaws may not be introduced by breeding, but they are
definitely capitalized upon.
 
Sadly, the fact that many of these accidental "traits" are then
capitalized upon then results in much inbreeding ( as that is usually the
only way to recreate such spontaneous genetic differences, and it is that
inbreeding that results in other flaws (even if the original "sport" did
not already carry such problematic genes, following progeny will due to
inbreeding)
 
for example, the so called "angora" ferret... do you think that suddenly
many different ferrets exhibited this trait ?  no..  one did..
 
and it was then instantly bred, and rebred, with as many of the original
progenitors, and their kin, in order to recreate such a trait, in order
to have that trait "self sustaining"... i.e: they bred and rebred a
"fluke" genetic mishap within a family to ensure the gene was not only a
fluke, then a recessive gene, and then a dominant..  but at what cost ?
 
my point being.. if someone suddenly reproduced a purple ferret, the
only way to create more purple ferrets would be to rebreed the original
parents, ( and hope) or breed the new purple ferret with others of a
similar genetic makeup ( i.e.: inbreed), or (hope amongst all hope) that
the "purple" trait is somehow dominant, but has no other genetics flaws..
mmmm
 
so we then end up with a rather cute purple ferret with two tails and a
vicious personality.. but hey.. it is cute ?
 
genetic defects may be "spontaneous" and flukes..  and breeding may
"only" exacerbate them..  but when we capitalize on the fluke "sports"
we INTENTIONALLY then introduce more genetic flaws simply because to
enhance the "fluke new trait" we HAVE to inbreed.
 
It is that part of the whole process that bothers me..
 
AND, it is that part of the process that introduces genetic flaws such
as deafness and short lives, bad bone structure, a third eye, etc etc
etc etc.
 
Darrin
[Posted in FML issue 4668]