"but those are moral claims, not claims about evolutionary adaptation. From an evolutionary point of view, morphs are completely normal."
Either I misunderstood what was being asked or my response was misunderstood.
Semantics regarding the word "normal" perhaps?
Do morphs, anomalies, occur in nature? The answer is yes. Are they the norm? The answer is no.
Is producing these mutations in a breeding program preserving "natural/normal beauty of nature?"
Yes and no. You are preserving something that has/does occur naturally on occasion, but it is NOT the norm. Mutations/anomalies are rare. The beauty part as I stated above is completely subjective.
From an evolutionary standpoint, the strongest, best equipped are the survivors.
The coloring and pattern schemes exist because of adaptation. Those traits assist in combating predation when the animals are young and vulnerable. Furthermore, in the case of many snakes, coloring and pattern allow camouflage for ambush feeding. Beyond that there are adaptations for thermogenesis and so on.
A mutation is a change in DNA and there are various reasons for the cause. Sometimes an external source other times its a "mistake" during cell division. Again, it is not NORMAL in the sense I'm speaking about it.
If the same mutations started popping up more frequently in a given population/location, one would have to look at the reasons for the occurrence. If the mutations were to continue, calling it normal would fit in this instance and the mutated population would eventually become the best adapted. That scenario could take millions of years however.
Maybe the answer here is the breeder would be producing a naturally occurring rarity.
Reply With Quote