FishingOut;4239937; said:
Inbreeding is scientificly known to mutate genepools. Never in good ways either.
FishingOut;4241764; said:
A mutation to me is when there is altered dna passed to the offspring.
"Mutation" refers to the change itself, regardless of whether it's passed to the next generation.
There is no evidence whatsoever and mechanistically impossible that inbreeding would "mutate genepools", let alone "scientificly known".
FishingOut;4241764; said:
About the NormalJD's, Get 5 from a respectable breeder and 5 from petsmart/petco. At 2-3 inch you can spot inbreeding. Blotchy patterns, depressed and hidden, lack of pearl. Jd's are one of the most beautiful fish in the hobby, But the genepool is so outta wack from always breeding them.
Once again, have you (or do you know anybody) actually done this and made the observation? I'm not arguing "whether" this is true. I'm arguing "how" you would even know.
Mutations happen more or less randomly, and accumulate in the population. Most are neutral and of no consequence - you won't even know they are there unless you sequence the DNA. Some are deleterious when present as a single copy (dominant), which are usually very quickly removed from the population because individuals carrying these dominant mutations can't compete with "normal" individuals, and are eventually eliminated (so are the dominant mutations). Recessive mutations (must be present with two copies, or homozygous, for the individual to exhibit phenotypic defects) can be maintained in the population for very long periods of time (although usually at low frequency), because individuals heterozygous for these mutations (one mutant copy and one wild type copy of the gene) are phenotypically normal and not subject to natural selection.
The difference between a cross between two "unrelated" individuals (so to speak, as they are all related somehow) and two siblings is that the probability that both parents carry a mutant copy of the same gene is different.
Assuming a given mutation is present in 0.1% (one in a thousand) of the individuals in a wild population. When FISH A already carries the mutation, the probability that an unrelated mate would carry the same mutation is 0.1%. In other words, 99.9% of the time the progenies would be phenotypically normal (although half of them would also carry one copy of the mutant gene). However, the probability that the siblings of FISH A carrying the same mutation is at least 50% (igoreing X- or Y-linked mutations here), and therefore if you cross FISH A with a sibling, 50% of the time you will get some homozygous mutant fish.
The discussion above is based on the presence of one single mutation. In reality there are thousands of mutations "drifting" in the population, and there is a very good chance that two siblings both carry the same mutation(s) in certain gene(s), and therefore 1/4 of the progenies would be homozygous mutant for
something. Simply put, by crossing siblings you create an artificial genetic bottle neck and serevely reduce the effective population size.
I hope this makes sense....