"You see, your picking in choosing what is right and wrong and hideing behind the "morality" arguement. I could directly extrapolate that your a natzi from your previous statements.

NOW I am NOT calling you a nazi simply stating that they had the exact same idea of a pure gene pool and simply changed there morals slighty for it too be right and not wrong."

The nazis, when it comes right down to it, did what they did because they believed themselves to be a superior race. They believed, if you were not of the physical makeup that they were, you were inherently 'inferior'.

Theres nothing inferior about those eggs/offspring- infact, who knows, they could well be far superior to either parent species. The simple fact is, this isnt a discussion as to whether or not one species is "superior" to another or not- this is a discussion as to can this have a serious effect on the population as a whole, or have a seriously negative effect on one of the individual animals involved (be it the offspring or either parent).

The Nazi's believed in a pure genepool of their own design because they believed their genes to be 'better' than that of others.

I believe in a pure genepool because thats what nature has intended- if it werent so, there would not be any special perameters around mating and everyone/thing could/would just screw everyone/thing and we would have minotaurs and griffons and all that sort of stuff. But that isnt reality. The reality is that most species genes do not intermingle corerctly- and the result is often mutated, deformed, or infertile babies/eggs.

Nature intends for species to stay within their own ranks- but sometimes man uses a loophole to allow such a thing to take place (usually by confining an aggressive male of one species, with a timid female of another).

Sometimes natures own plan backfires against it, and for whatever reason, 2 alternate species are confined to an area and begin interbreeding- typically, this is due to some form of geographic confining agent (a mountain range, a massive valley, islands, etc).

However, if this WERE to occur in nature, it would likely be because of the fact that these individuals of both species had been CONFINED; and as such did not likely have access to mate with the majority of the population, thusly keeping their alterned genetic makeup confined to the same area as the individuals themselves.

I really dont think you can compare a group of people claiming another group of people (same species) are genetically inferior based on minor physical attributes; to a person saying they dont want to risk diluting the gene pool of an entire species by mixing it with another species, simply for the pleasure that person will recieve in finding out if they will or will not hatch.

If the Nazis had a problem with a group of people because they were attempting to make love to horses or sheep in order to make a hybrid, yeah, I could see how such a comparison would be made.


As such, it has little bearing on the conversation; aside from attempting to insight an arguement.

The only even slightly useful comparison there is the whole dilution of the genepool.

The Nazis believed something like that could happen, and wished to protect their 'superior' 'pure' bloodline- a narcissistic outlook to say the least.

I believe something like that could happen with a captive population of reptiles; especially if said hybrids WERE 'visually' superior to their parents- if this were the case, they could easily become something people are interested in creating themselves, and suddenly the population of these hybridized animals is booming. Suddenly, its becoming more and more difficult to find a straight cresty or a straight white lined, as people have so thoroughly interbred them that no 'pure' genetic line still exitsts within the captive lines- which means people will increase their demand for wild caught specimens of both species (ie, those still maintaining the 100% cresty/white lined genetic code).

Simply an example: wild scottish cats (a wild species of cat native to scotland, duh) are dying out. One of the main causes of this, is interbreeding with domesticated cats.

Now, while this DOES produce offspring all the same, this offspring is not 100% of either- it is a hybrid of both, and as such, may have genetic abnormalities that might not appear til later on in its life. The chances of this animals offsprings (if it is capable of having offspring) bearing some sort of deficiency is even higher than that of the oringal hybrid.

Another:
"Haldane's rule is one of the most widely applicable paradigms in evolutionary biology, stating that in species crossings, the heterogametic sex will suffer more severely in terms of sterility and inviability. We address this in a within-species outbreeding situation by assessing the risk of producing inviable offspring depending on the sex ratio of the clutch produced in between-population crossings in the laboratory. In crossings between male and female sand lizards (Lacerta agilis) from two different sampling regions, one in Sweden, one in central Europe, risk of gametic incompatibility is unaffected by outbreeding, but offspring from between-population crossings show 300% higher malformation frequency and 10% lower hatching success. The risk of having inviable offspring increases with the production of daughters, i.e. the hemizygous sex in this species (ZW). Such sex-specific genetic costs of offspring production need to be incorporated into life history ecology, e.g. sex allocation theory."

300% higher malformation frequency; and thats within a same-species, different population breeding group.

(taken from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00652.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ele)

Basically, what it comes down to is- this isnt a matter of believing one animal genetically or phsyically superior to the other. This is a matter of man mucking with nature and creating something nature had never intended to exist. As such, you cannot begin to fathom what variety of negatives could come about through these sort of cross breedings- we dont know enough about genetics really, to claim to know 100% for certain that something truly bad couldnt come of the situation (creation of a creature with an extremely 'negative' aspect ).

And when it comes right down to it, who ends up losing the most in all these circumstances? Not man, because he really couldnt care less about things to begin with.

The animals are the ones who suffer, because its them that will have a much higher deformity rate, a much higher infertility rate, and a much higher risk of some sort of genetic disorder making its way into their bloodline.

The Nazis did what they did, and believed what they did, because they were narcissistic apes reaching out for a way to make themselves feel bigger and better than what they are.

Im here talking to this person because I honestly believe that it could have a detrimental effect on these creatures- be it through a genetic disorder that springs into existence, be it through the pain and suffereing of deformed babies, be it through the pain and suffering of an animal that knows whats taking place to it is instinctually not what it should be doing but cannot stop it; or be it through the eventual dilution of the bloodlines (which can lead to all sorts of negative things; paramount of which in my mind is the increased strain on wild populations as people decide they want a 100% cresty, and not that one that MIGHT have white lined genes in it).

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]