As E. M. Ennis writes,
>...but it seems that Ed is either unaware or of ignoring (assuming the
>latter) the fact that domestication does not follow the 'rules' of
>Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
OK then; let's talk about the rules of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. But
please KISS, OK?
You know, it would be greatly appreciated if instead of throwing around
terms that are essentially meaningless, (at least to me and possibly to
just a few others ) could you please explain yourself. What in the
blazes are you talking about? Please let us understand you.
Random mating does not exist and there is no NATURAL selection to select
for genes.
May I please refer you to Bob Church's summary of all the ferrets worldwide
that are breeding and contributing to the genetic drift. Could you be
mistaken in your assertion that random mating does not exist and there is
no natural selection ...?
If your point is that this absence of natural selection is reducing the
fitness of the ferret as a 'wild' animal (i.e. losing its ability to
propagate the species in a feral population), then you can't also argue
that ferrets are really wild animals hidden beneath a vanishingly thin
veneer of domestication.
You can't base an arguement on a portion of principles when the remaining
(excluded) principles directly contradict your arguement.
Please accept my point that natural selection cannot possibly occur in
populations that are desexed. How on earth (or anywhere else for that
matter) can those subtle changes rendered by environment, radioactivity, and
other forces that affect differentiation of DNA and the way it is combined
during the sexual process, how can such minute differences be passed on
through hundreds of thousands of generations in the process of feral-ness
or domestication when the transfer mechanism is incomplete (there is no
transfer of the messengers of change from parent to offspring)?
Who would not agree that a MF ferret is neither improving nor degrading the
species? Hey, it can't do nothing if it can't breed. And maybe, who really
knows? just how many MF ferrets are the product of massive inbreeding,
wherein the inherent defects of parents and siblings are in effect
multiplied to the extent that so many of the MF ferrets are cancer prone
and demonstrate that, because of their very, very short lifespans, are
fatally flawed ferrets. Whether by chance or design, would it not be to
the business advantage of MF to produce massive numbers of fatally flawed
ferrets? Is this not akin to planned obsolesence? Is not the answer to
that simple question obvious?
I should like a little more explanation on the seeming contradiction
between the lack of natural selection (as an animal frozen in "genetic
flux" and the thin veneer of domestication that "coats" the domestic
(not domesticated) house ferret. I just don't get the relationship of
which you write ... sorry.
Possibly, the fact that MF ferrets cannot possibly procreate, is this really
a blessing in disguise? It may very well be, because if such fatally flawed
ferrets were allowed to breed, they would be spreading their defects of
cancer proness and abbreviated longevity to all future races of ferrets and
could possibly hasten even more so the ferret's acceleration into the doom
of extinction. How could bad beget good?
Edward Lipinski, Der Wahrheitskaempe von Frettchenvergnuegenland dabei,
der sagt, "Je vis en espoir."
Edward Lipinski, [G.] the champion of truth from ferret joy land, who
says, [F.] "I live in hope."
[Posted in FML issue 2394]
|
