It's also an observable fact that after thousands of years of animal and plant breeding, using even unnatural methods such as inbreeding to produce gross mutations, it never occurred to anyone that plants and animals could be breed to became something radically different to the original species
I’m not trying to get all Shelbyville Manhattan, but why do you describe inbreeding as unnatural? Yes as Taq correctly pointed out this reduces genetic variation, which means that there will be an increased probability that detrimental traits will be expressed, as well as beneficial traits. The reason this is a problem when we look at modern humans is that dying from a genetic disorder is a tragedy that could be avoided. Similarly, in terms of livestock, food plants (I don’t know the technical term for that) and I suppose pets, the detrimental effects can be mitigated by how we manipulate the environment that these organisms live in. It’s also worth pointing out that inbreeding doesn’t create mutations, since they happen all the time, but the environment we create allows the detrimental mutations to propagate at the same time as we try to maximise our artificially selected preferential mutations. It is for these reasons that our perception of what genetic mutations can accomplish can become skewed
But in nature for plants and animals, including us not too long ago, things are different. All things being equal, a significant majority of offspring in each generation will die from lack of resources, predation or disease. Individuals held back by their genes will die off, freeing up resources that those individuals who have an advantage through their genes can use to thrive. Sometimes this differential between advantage and disadvantage can occur within a single brood. This means advantageous mutations can propagate through a population more quickly, while disadvantageous mutations can be removed without lingering, like in the artificial environments we create.
Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
