What do you think of hybrids?

[Amadeus]

I believe that it is unnatural for a python found in Africa to be bred to python from Southeastern Asia purely for one's own amusement and financial gain. (all for capitalism though)

[formica]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Hybrids don't really exist in the wild. Natural intergrades do though. We have imaginary lines that animals don't know about and cross them on a regular basis. If it's caught in one such imaginary boundary than it's labeled as that.

Hybrids that are an animal from Africa (ball python) and another from Australia (Woma python) are not natural and would never occur. I don't see how that is evolution when it never could happen.

hybridisation has nothing to do with where an animal comes from - the most obvious example is the As-s (scuse the hiphen, forum is filtering the word lol), which is found frequently in the wild, fish are another group of animals which often hybridise naturally, the list of natural hybrids is endless, sometimes they are able to reproduce and if well adapted will form their own species or sub species as time goes on

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by mikoh4792

It depends on what you consider natural. I find it natural that with our brain capacity we can choose to breed different types of animals together to create hybrids. Just because they don't do it on their own out in the wild doesn't make it unnatural.

That's actually the definition of unnatural.

Our nice, cozy sterile environments are NOT natural. We mimic natural parameters but doesn't make it natural.

Our "brain capacity" your talking about is just our arrogance.

Would you care how breeding two species who have evolved for their own habitats together creates "evolution" as you stated? I don't see how that's evolving considering patterns and colours have a lot to do with natural habitat and their survival.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

I believe that it is unnatural for a python found in Africa to be bred to python from Southeastern Asia purely for one's own amusement and financial gain. (all for capitalism though)

I think it's natural. It's not right by any means, but nature doesn't have to be right.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by formica

hybridisation has nothing to do with where an animal comes from - the most obvious example is the As-s (scuse the hiphen, forum is filtering the word lol), which is found frequently in the wild, fish are another group of animals which often hybridise naturally, the list of natural hybrids is endless, sometimes they are able to reproduce and if well adapted will form their own species or sub species as time goes on

Again, intergrades and hybrids are two distinct things.

You are confusing the two.

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by mikoh4792

I think it's natural. It's not right by any means, but nature doesn't have to be right.

If it were natural then these species would already have been found in the wild...

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by mikoh4792

I think it's natural. It's not right by any means, but nature doesn't have to be right.

Sure it does. If by nature it's not right, it dies. That's the law of nature. If you're not right, you die. It's exactly what evolution is too.

[formica]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

The problem is simple.

Best example is Australia.

Legally we can no longer import their animals. Such as jungle carpet pythons. We no longer have a gene pool, it's a gene puddle that's muddied by other animals like the "carpondro". For what purpose? For the sake of saying "I did it".

We will lose what nature gifted us for the sake of us being egotistical and wanting to play God.

why will the gene pool be lost? if anything, it is expaneded with every hybrid - evolution favours a wide and complex gene pool, which is not what you get if you try to maintain pure genetics within a particular species

[formica]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Again, intergrades and hybrids are two distinct things.

You are confusing the two.

no. I am not, for example, Rudd and Roach, two seperate species, both of which hybridise naturally, Roach and Bream are another common example. the list is endless, and they are hybrids

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

That's actually the definition of unnatural.

Our nice, cozy sterile environments are NOT natural. We mimic natural parameters but doesn't make it natural.

Our "brain capacity" your talking about is just our arrogance.

Would you care how breeding two species who have evolved for their own habitats together creates "evolution" as you stated? I don't see how that's evolving considering patterns and colours have a lot to do with natural habitat and their survival.

I never said anything about evolving. I just find it natural that humans want to toy around with nature.

We tend to separate ourselves from nature but in actuality our cozy sterile environments are natural. We create these environments like beavers make dens, and ants make ant hills. Our system is just more complex and advanced.

You can not seriously think our brain capacity is just our arrogance. We are smarter than other animals. I don't mean to point out the obvious.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Sure it does. If by nature it's not right, it dies. That's the law of nature. If you're not right, you die. It's exactly what evolution is too.

I meant right in a moral context. Right as in good, ethical...etc.

Nature doesn't have to be good.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by formica

no. I am not, for example, Rudd and Roach, two seperate species, both of which hybridise naturally, Roach and Bream are another common example. the list is endless, and they are hybrids

You are.

If they are not artificially introduced then it's not a hybrid. It's simple.

You have yet to talk about evolution as you stated in the first post and answer my question regarding as such.

[formica]

evolution is not a thought process, it is not designed or manipulated in any kind of intelligent way - it is completly random, survival of the fittest relies on randomness to produce as many options as possible so that one may have a chance at surviving in whatever enviroment it happened to end up in - hybrids are the ultimate way to increase the gene pool and therefore increase the odds of survival


as for the morality of it, to be honest thats a pointless road to go down, I think religous ideals ought to be kept out of forums which are not about religon.

[formica]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

You are.

If they are not artificially introduced then it's not a hybrid. It's simple.

You have yet to talk about evolution as you stated in the first post and answer my question regarding as such.

perhaps you should look up the word Hybrid before you continue this line of argument. - it has nothing to do with human intervention

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by mikoh4792

I never said anything about evolving. I just find it natural that humans want to toy around with nature.

We tend to separate ourselves from nature but in actuality our cozy sterile environments are natural. We create these environments like beavers make dens, and ants make ant hills. Our system is just more complex and advanced.

You can not seriously think our brain capacity is just our arrogance. We are smarter than other animals. I don't mean to point out the obvious.

I didn't talk to you about evolution.

Since you touched upon it it's arrogance to believe we are smarter than other animals. Pretty sure we kill our own kind for no reason at all. I'd at times, think other animals are ahead of us in intelligence. They don't destroy their own habitat either.

Also, I wasn't talking about intelligence when I was talking about arrogance. It's arrogant for us to just play God "because we can".