From: "MScottMGP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| (Bill Cole wrote)
|
| > I would take your criticism more seriously if I
| > thought a kinked tail
| > implied discomfort for the gerbil. Please show me
| > if I'm wrong.
| >
|
| While an individual gerbil may not experience
| discomfort from an inherited defect, respectfully I
| don't think this is an advisable standard from which
| to proceed.
|
| A better standard would be to ask why the trait has
| been determined to be a fault in the first place.
| Certainly there must be a reason for this decision.
Good points and thanks, Amy. I'm learning.
But I must ask: Who said the kinked tail is a fault? Surely it would be
at a gerbil show (I guess) -- but I don't think Darwin defined gerbil
faults, did he?
To previous (well-informed) folks who replied on this topic: Why do you
assume a kinked tail is somehow linked to an undesirable trait for
gerbils, vs. a desirable one? Suppose it is related to some longevity
factor, so my kink-tailed gerbil would live a happy 10 years instead of 3.
I understand that many mutations are harmful (at least discomfiting) for
the animals. But if we decide to stop all kinked-tails etc. from
breeding, how will we ever know what beneficial mutations are being
canceled by human intervention?
As I understand these matters, mutations are random events. Some benefit
a species and some do not. Are you prepared to STOP a course of nature
because the gerbil's tail looks funny to you?
