|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
The occurrence of hereditary disorders in conservation breeding programs may severely hamper the overall aim of such programs. The obstacles that arise in this context and the particular management strategies needed to deal with the problems are yet to be adequately addressed. Results from a literature review indicate that hereditary disorders may be fairly common in zoo populations. An example with albinism in a captive brown bear population bred in Nordic zoos is presented. It is demonstrated that the segregation pattern is consistent with an autosomal recessive allele, and carrier probabilities of live animals indicate that the allele occurs in high frequency in the present population. Removing animals with a probability of carrying the allele will result in loss of founder alleles considered particularly valuable. Zoo Biol 18:81-99, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc. (emphasis added) Source.Of course a little thought, and nobody'd believe mutations only accumulate at an alarming rate among humans. The selection goddess can't select critters automatically, you see. That's my whole point. Without automatic 'selection' eliminating them, mutations must accumulate, and all observations support (and will continue to support) this inescapable conclusion. Those are zoo populations that have been bred amongst each other for long spans of time. Really? Just how many million years have the zoo populations been bred "amongst each other"? When do you intend to prove this? And finally, so what if they have? The limited variety of the gene pool in that population coupled with the tendency of zoos to keep even the less adapted animals alive, unlike nature, will result in an increase in undesireable traits. Kinda the opposite of that business about small isolated populations evolving rapidly then? Is that an official part of the "theory" you believe in? You've essencially agreed with the theory that animals with those traits will be eliminated more by natural selection than animals without those traits. I have? I don't recall agreeing that 'natural selection' even exists. Humans have had an increase in inherited sickness since medical science has been able to treat those diseases and the people who would have died young can now live to have children. Hemophilia, and childhood diabeties have increased. You do make me smile. Modern medical science has been around for how long? How many generations? "More people" is rather an off-target thing to say. There are more people period. It's safe to assume there are more people with any xyz thing you care to dream up. More people wearing bluejeans, more people eating pie, more people dancing. If you wanted to be relevant, you'd demonstrate a larger percentage of people with harmful mutations, and demonstrate that the percentage of people with harmful mutations does not naturally grow on its own at the observed pace without medicine.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
