5 ms·

>Behavioural traits (with very few exceptions) vary more widely in between individuals within a breed than from breed to breed. No they absolutely do not. The

>Behavioural traits (with very few exceptions) vary more widely in between individuals within a breed than from breed to breed. No they absolutely do not. There is nothing to suggest this, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. >but purebreds will have genetic deficiencies. No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will. >As silly as "labradoodle" sounds, these people have the right idea. Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed.

craigsmansion 7y ago
> There is nothing to suggest this, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds and aggressive and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed. There is plenty to suggest this. > No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will. These subsets are not equal. I'll clarify in a bit. > Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed. That's not how genetics work. Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers. Say, for simplicity's sake, hip dysplasia is bound to a single recessive gene. If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia, and it will halve the number of carriers of the recessive gene in the genetic lineup. Do that a couple of generations with different breeds, and it starts becoming very unlikely that two recessive genes for dysplasia will match up. Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring. For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy, which is very much the opposite of breeding for conformity.
- ShlomoS 7y ago
  >I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds Who eviscerate their owner after being docile and submissive for many years. The fact is self-evident. How many sheep dogs point? How many pointers herd? Behaviour is massively inheritable, and pointing to exceptions shows that you know this. The fact that they are exceptions shows that the majority of individuals in a breed behave as their breed behaves. >and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed There is no such thing as a "dominant specimen". The dog whisperer was not real, it was a phony show just like all reality TV shows. >Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers. You are conflating purebred with inbred. This is simply dishonest. Are the children of a Japanese couple inbred because both their parents are Japanese? Inbreeding means close relations, not anyone in the same breed or ethnic group. >If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia That's not true at all. You are conflating "prone to" with 100% has the gene for, and "not prone to" with 100% doesn't have the gene for. And hip dysplasia is not a simple single recessive gene, and is very common in all large dogs, including mutts. >Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring. Careful monitoring is not 100%, but it is more effective than just random chance, which is what you are advocating. >For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy That is simply a lie. Well bred bloodlines of purebred dogs have far lower rates of congenital health problems than mutts do. Consider the shiba inu for example. They are a pure breed. Yet they have lower rates of congenital health problems than mixed breed dogs do. Same with working lines of lots of breeds, from rat terriers to malinois.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

craigsmansion 7y ago

> There is nothing to suggest this, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds and aggressive and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed. There is plenty to suggest this. > No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will. These subsets are not equal. I'll clarify in a bit. > Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed. That's not how genetics work. Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers. Say, for simplicity's sake, hip dysplasia is bound to a single recessive gene. If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia, and it will halve the number of carriers of the recessive gene in the genetic lineup. Do that a couple of generations with different breeds, and it starts becoming very unlikely that two recessive genes for dysplasia will match up. Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring. For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy, which is very much the opposite of breeding for conformity.

ShlomoS 7y ago
>I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds Who eviscerate their owner after being docile and submissive for many years. The fact is self-evident. How many sheep dogs point? How many pointers herd? Behaviour is massively inheritable, and pointing to exceptions shows that you know this. The fact that they are exceptions shows that the majority of individuals in a breed behave as their breed behaves. >and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed There is no such thing as a "dominant specimen". The dog whisperer was not real, it was a phony show just like all reality TV shows. >Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers. You are conflating purebred with inbred. This is simply dishonest. Are the children of a Japanese couple inbred because both their parents are Japanese? Inbreeding means close relations, not anyone in the same breed or ethnic group. >If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia That's not true at all. You are conflating "prone to" with 100% has the gene for, and "not prone to" with 100% doesn't have the gene for. And hip dysplasia is not a simple single recessive gene, and is very common in all large dogs, including mutts. >Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring. Careful monitoring is not 100%, but it is more effective than just random chance, which is what you are advocating. >For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy That is simply a lie. Well bred bloodlines of purebred dogs have far lower rates of congenital health problems than mutts do. Consider the shiba inu for example. They are a pure breed. Yet they have lower rates of congenital health problems than mixed breed dogs do. Same with working lines of lots of breeds, from rat terriers to malinois.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]