E. g. guttata said:
I had a discussion with somone on another forum that argued that hybridization led to evolution. *Shakes head*
Heh. No, it can be a part of changes, because branches can diverge/converge. But I agree, it's by no means the driving force behind evolution.
The hybridization is what it is, taking snakes of different genetic backgrounds and producing something in between. The big problem with the two is that they are accomplising the same goal, but through completely different means.
This is true when you cross a corn from New Jersey with a corn from the upper Keys. If a new mutant gene appears in the populations at one end of their range, it would take much more than our own lifetimes for this mutant to reach the other end of the range by "natural" means. In effect, by crossing two corns that you find desireable, unless you are paying specific attention to localities of all of their wild ancestors and crossing only things from very close origins, you are hybridizing in order to produce new genetic combinations that do not exist in the wild populations.
no matter how much you "water down" a hybrid, it is still a hybrid. most people have seen the picture of my little hybrid, and most thought he was pure.
You cannot apply this only to captive populations while ignoring the wild populations. Since corns and emoryi share a common ancestor, they're all impure. Since there is intergradation and hybridization in the wild populations, the only safe assumption is that all wild corns are just watered down hybrids.
Some people won't view it as a big deal, because his first offspring will be 3.125% emoryi, so there really isn't a lot of influence from that side of the family, but the fact is that he has emoryi in his background, and is therefore no longer elligible to contribute his genes towards an evolution, just more hybridization.
I disagree with this statement. Evolution is the result of 2 factors caused by reproduction: 1- introduction of new genes, 2- selection. Selection is most definitely taking place. The introduction of new genes takes place whether you only stick with the random mutations that pop up in "pure" breedings, or whether you include new genetic material from some other gene pool, whether that be a corn from another locale, or an Emoryi, or a cal king.
You can say "it's just hybridization" but you can also say "it's just waiting around for random new mutations to pop up." The methods might be viewed as "different" but there is no yardstick by which one can be said to be "better" than the other. If a new gene occurs as a result of random mutation in "pure" lines, but it exists nowhere else in the cornsnake population, how is that gene a "pure cornsnake gene?" :shrugs:
The other thing to keep in mind is that an emoryi is not 0% pure corn. It is more like "98% pure corn." That would mean a corn X emoryi would be not "50% pure corn" but "99%." The "impurities" in the offspring of your creamsicle would (based on the above "98%" hypothetical) measure at something more like 0.0625% which would be 6.25 out of every 10,000 genes. There is a finite number of genes, and there is a point where you cannot simply keep dividing genes up and saying "it's got half an emoryi gene" in it and it's "impure."
