I'm typing all this on my phone, unfortunately I don't have time to type a point-for-point rebuttal. Maybe later.
So you wrote, "I only mentioned the adaptations because because you mentioned how they have an elongate head and unique pattern and eluded to it being due to them being feral. Essentially I tried to lend credence to your statement, foolish I suppose on my part trying to give you any credit for your thought process. By the way again my statement fits into a comparison regardless. Hybrids are unnatural due to the manipulation of their breeding partners by man correct? So if a man introduces a animal to an environment it would not otherwise ever inhabit isn't that unnatural? Doesn't that again fit the definition of a comparison. Both instances involve man's manipulation hence making it unnatural by your own definition of unnatural."
- I never suggested that their different appearance was the result of their environment. It was other members who suggested so. Please read my original post again. I said it made them look more predatory and that I liked it, and ended the post with asking if other members liked their appearance too. Maybe you should take more care with reading and taking apart my posts?
- My position is that manmade fish are unnatural. The presence of invasive species in any particular habitat is manmade and unnatural, yes, but that does not make the individual animals themselves unnatural, since the only difference between a feral population (in this case, at least) and the wild native populations would be in terms of location. How does that make the animals "unnatural" in the same way that a hybrid is unnatural?
So you wrote, "I only mentioned the adaptations because because you mentioned how they have an elongate head and unique pattern and eluded to it being due to them being feral. Essentially I tried to lend credence to your statement, foolish I suppose on my part trying to give you any credit for your thought process. By the way again my statement fits into a comparison regardless. Hybrids are unnatural due to the manipulation of their breeding partners by man correct? So if a man introduces a animal to an environment it would not otherwise ever inhabit isn't that unnatural? Doesn't that again fit the definition of a comparison. Both instances involve man's manipulation hence making it unnatural by your own definition of unnatural."
- I never suggested that their different appearance was the result of their environment. It was other members who suggested so. Please read my original post again. I said it made them look more predatory and that I liked it, and ended the post with asking if other members liked their appearance too. Maybe you should take more care with reading and taking apart my posts?
- My position is that manmade fish are unnatural. The presence of invasive species in any particular habitat is manmade and unnatural, yes, but that does not make the individual animals themselves unnatural, since the only difference between a feral population (in this case, at least) and the wild native populations would be in terms of location. How does that make the animals "unnatural" in the same way that a hybrid is unnatural?