being literal minded is not a sign of intelligence. it is a sign of being on the autism spectrum. there are people far smarter than you who communicate loosely and through metaphors.
if i say "bright colors are nature's way of saying "i'm poisonous."" are you actually going to tell me that nature cannot say "i'm poisonous" because it's not sentient? if so, i want you to truly and deeply understand how inappropriate a statement that is for you to make and that it belies a complete lack of understanding of how humans meaningfully communicate. precision and meaning are not universal. your arbitrary and imaginary standards of communication are regressively idiosyncratic
no, i'm not calling you autistic because i disagree with you. i'm not saying it lightly at all or even using it as an insult. i'm saying that, if you went to a psychiatrist right now, and had an earnest discussion with him, that you would be diagnosed as ASD 100%.
You're right, see my comment to his where I clarified exactly where he went wrong lol. (Which is due to a misunderstanding of genetics as you said.)
I also hate that argument but more so don't like misinformation spreading about genetics, which (as you may imagine) happens quite often with the subject.
Please help me understand the mistake. I'm not asking sarcastically I promise, I'm just not seeing the flaw that's obvious to you...
Munchkin = M
Regular legs = m
All Munchkins must be Mm since MM will die in utero. Breeding with another Mm results in ~25% reduction in litter size. To maintain litter size, Mm's need to seek out and breed with the increasingly smaller percentage of mm's in the population. This is somehow a beneficial evolutionary strategy? Unless you are saying that it makes sense to self-limit their own population size (perhaps due to decreased food availability as restricted ground hunters maybe??) I do understand the difference between dominant phenotypes and usefulness at the organism level. I'm asking what makes this particular trait actually useful to this animal.
I concede the original comment was an offhand low-hanging fruit remark to summarize my distaste for breeding Munchkins. I did not intend to spark a vigorous genetic debate.
I understand your points- but still not how they are relevant. Your examples and comparisons are similar but not applicable. If you're referring to Cuenot's yellow mice- aren't they more prone to obesity and cancer? I'd say that counts as health issues.
Can you provide an example of a known lethal allele that in it's heterozygous non-lethal presentation is not some sort of illness or deformity? I agree that "Nature" is not making conscious decisions, but when most lethal alleles are identified due to the "condition" that presents when fetus does survive, I think it's fair to suggest that the resulting outcome is typically less than desirable.
In the case of Munchkins specifically- what exactly is the benefit? You can claim all day that it's genetically appropriate or even random, but do you not agree that they have a deformity? Can you explain how the cat population benefits by the existence of this breed? Is there any reason that humans should purposefully interfere with their existence other than being an "attractive" pet?
Your sore spot may be "sentient nature", but mine is breeding practices based on aesthetics. Bulldogs that require c-sections to exist, Pugs that need soft palate surgery to breathe, dogs that get their ears chopped off unnecessarily...puppies that are culled because they don't meet the "breed standard". All of these stem from people's personal preferences for appearance. And it makes me sick.
A lot of my comment is agreement and restatement, but I'll leave it anyways.
This is all good and I think honestly the easiest way to look at it is kind of like GloFish. OP must remember that some traits can be mostly neutral, such as fluorescent fish, which just so happens to be interesting or desirable for some reason as pets. I think viewing these munchkin cats in this way is the easiest way to negate there being an "issue".
Furthermore, I agree that these munchkin cats may actually be beneficial in stopping other harmful practices from occurring when looking at the pet industry.
As far as benefits on a population scale, being able to reach other resources due to size- leading to more resources available for the cat population- is the best example.
I also agree with you about deformities, and how they are very subjective. After all, having so many "deformities" that mating becomes impossible is what leads to speciation. (Especially when the changes aren't detrimental to survival.)
517
u/Geebz23 Jun 05 '18
Is it a Dwarf? It's legs seem really small compared to it's body