In the case of rays, there are many documented cases of wild occurring hybrids.
Again in the case of recessive genes, like piebald or albinism, these are both naturally occurring and many documented cases of well functioning adults. This proves a certain level of discredit to your statement as these animals are capable of competing in nature and thrive.
If your statement were completely true, then there would be far fewer documented cases of genetic anomalies
I agree, this happens in nature as well. This type of "experimentation" is part and parcel of natural selection; the occasional hybrid or mutant arises here and there...but most are failures. The few successful "new" combinations may prosper and spread; Mule Deer, common throughout the western half of North America, have been shown by genetic studies to be a naturally-occuring hybrid between eastern Whitetails and west-coast Blacktails, resulting in a successful new species that could compete in certain environments with its parent species.
But again...most natural hybrids and/or mutants are unsuccessful, quickly culled by natural selection due to some negative survival trait(s). The occasional one is a success, and these are generally the ones we see and point at as examples of why hybrids are okay. We can't reference the unsuccessful ones because...we rarely get to see them before they disappear. Recessive traits are just that...recessive...because natural selection usually does not favour them. When they surface in nature, it's a combination of chance and luck.
In basement fish rooms all over the world we have hobbyists creating hybrids or breeding for specific recessive traits; they don't care if it could survive in nature, or for that matter if it will even survive long term in a fish tank, as long as it has the odd shape or colour which will generate sales dollars and/or bragging rights. How many times have we heard that Flowerhorns, for example, are weak, inferior fish that tend not to have robust immune systems and don't usually live as long as expected?
I always regret getting involved in this topic, because invariably someone will get pissy and begin to defend the indefensible by utilizing personal jabs and attacks, i.e. "high horse". And yet, an opinion was originally solicited by the OP; the simple fact is that everyone has one and we do not all agree. Falling back on insults is a typical tactic when a realistic appraisal fails to produce the desired result.
But, before I bow out, I'll just call attention to the following quote:
"Breeding for recessive traits is also not hybridization. It is no different than having a child with a different hair color."
Sure, go on believing that; two human parents having a child that exhibits a recessive hair colour is exactly the same as a fish breeder selectively breeding through multiple generations for some odd recessive variant, with no eye towards overall health and survivability. The two situations are virtually indistinguishable.
I yield the floor. Have at 'er.
