Dorkhedeos
Boss Major
that nazi stuff is gross to even hear about. anyways, the reversing evolution is going to be really hard. if you come down to south san francisco, you could ask the guys at genentech if reverse evolution is even possible 
Community Male Bettas?
- Thread starter Fate2006
- Start date
GuppyDude
Stephen
To have reverse evolution, one would need to know the subject's process of evolution up to it's current point. This would not be impossible per say, but difficult on a level that might as well be unattainable.
Amunet
Fish Aficionado
I'm sure it could be done. You would just need to be totally dedicated to it.
Just like dogs and cats have been bred to be certain ways, I'm sure betta males could be bred to being less aggressive.
I do like that idea that someone said about perhaps trying to give females larger fins! That'd be very cool! Although probably would be a bit hard trying to breed your long finned gal with a male since he'd probably see her as another male
Just like dogs and cats have been bred to be certain ways, I'm sure betta males could be bred to being less aggressive.
I do like that idea that someone said about perhaps trying to give females larger fins! That'd be very cool! Although probably would be a bit hard trying to breed your long finned gal with a male since he'd probably see her as another male
InaneCathode
Fishaholic
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with the fact that I'd have to go against thousands of years of evolution... and my major consern is that I don't want to have to make the maels fight... I wonder if there would be another way??? hmm... wellhmm who should I attempt to breed first I wonder
ahh alas... if anybody does try to do this I believe that they would make a killing on the betta market... I mean who wouldn't want a tank full of beautiful male bettas?? not me ^^ I'd love one
It's not evolution it's selective breeding <_<
'bettas' as we know them wouldnt have ever developed in the wild on their own.
If you could get your bettas to partake in a certain herbal medicine im sure they'd be MUCH more calm. Although they might just make a bubble hammock and watch animal planet all day...
Fate2006
Fish Addict
I agree with the fact that I'd have to go against thousands of years of evolution... and my major consern is that I don't want to have to make the maels fight... I wonder if there would be another way??? hmm... well
ahh alas... if anybody does try to do this I believe that they would make a killing on the betta market... I mean who wouldn't want a tank full of beautiful male bettas?? not me ^^ I'd love one
It's not evolution it's selective breeding <_<
'bettas' as we know them wouldnt have ever developed in the wild on their own.
If you could get your bettas to partake in a certain herbal medicine im sure they'd be MUCH more calm. Although they might just make a bubble hammock and watch animal planet all day...
Actually selective breeding over thousands of years is classified (since the damage has been done and chances are slim to non of reversile) forced evolution... Really, I'd just be returning bettas to the way they are in nature except with long fins and nicer tails
(yeah I know nicer isn't a word )As someone obsessed with biology, this thread is killing me
There is no such thing as 'devolution'. I know it's a matter of semantics but it's bugging me 'Devolution' either involves travelling backwards in time - obviously not an option unless you know (too) much about physics - or is a term used in politics It doesn't occur in nature. Even when you see a species 'reverting' to a what resembles a previous form, it is still evolution - never 'devolution'
Whoever was worried about the 'dorkiness' has met their match lol - do ignore my post at will.
Anyway, the aggression in wild bettas is only less profound because of the space they have to move around in. If you were to place two wild bettas in a bowl, they'd still fight to the death. Many of the modern bettas bred for fighting are bred from wild-caught stock and hybrids. In actuality, domestic bettas are probably somewhat less aggressive than the wild ones (I'm not talking about fighters which have been bred specificaly for fighting) precisely because we've bred them for generations without considering temperament.
You can see the effect of ignoring temperament by considering certain strains (I think many yellows are) that are more aggressive than others. This is because they are all decended (more or less) from the same individuals and therefore all carry some similar genes. It so happens that the few ancestors from which the strain decended were a little more aggressive. Over generations, you find the strain develops into a more aggressive one compared to others as it's only being bred for color/finnage etc - temperament is largely overlooked.
In the wild, being highly territorial and capeable of defending your territory is obviously beneficial - you can protect your patch of water, ensure your food isn't 'stolen' and prevent rival males from breeding with females wondering through your area. These things increase your chances of passing on your genes - many of which will be responsible for your aggression. The result is that your offspring are also aggressive. Obviously also, there is a limmit - if the fish become too aggressive, they'll start killing off females or siblings early on - and then the frequency of genes responsible for aggression decreases.
In captivity, it would be perfectly feasable to breed bettas - generation after generation - to be less aggressive (you could use a mirror to test aggression - fights are entirely unecesary). However, it wouldn't take just a few generations as you are hoping the genes that have been so successful for the past few thousand years will either mutate or have hidden, amongst them, genes that do not produce such aggressive fish. The mutation option is highly unlikely as aggression won't be down to a single gene (genes don't work like that - even the classic example of human eye color isn't down to a single gene - very few things are) but quick if it were to happen and the other option - that some bettas actually are less aggressive anyway - doesn't seem to be the case. So you'll be playing one hell of a waiting game or searching for a needle in a haystack Either way, you are extremely unlikely to succeed and extremely likely to be wasting your time.
About the suggestion that betta aggression is only partly genetic... I tend to be of the view that everything is genetic Don't get me wrong - I only mean this in the sense that the 'basis' is genetic. Your genes set the limmits to what the 'environment' can do. Frankly, no matter how you treat young bettas, they'll become aggressive. There's a reason you have to jar males. No matter how long you keep them together, eventualy they'll have to be seperated. Simialrly, the length of a betta's fins or whether it becomes a full halfmoon or not may be to do with the environment - but no matter how you raise a fish that is geneticaly a plakat or veil tail, you cannot get long fins or a halfmoon spread.
Ok - done with the rant
There is no such thing as 'devolution'. I know it's a matter of semantics but it's bugging me
'Devolution' either involves travelling backwards in time - obviously not an option unless you know (too) much about physics - or is a term used in politics It doesn't occur in nature. Even when you see a species 'reverting' to a what resembles a previous form, it is still evolution - never 'devolution' Whoever was worried about the 'dorkiness' has met their match lol - do ignore my post at will.
Anyway, the aggression in wild bettas is only less profound because of the space they have to move around in. If you were to place two wild bettas in a bowl, they'd still fight to the death. Many of the modern bettas bred for fighting are bred from wild-caught stock and hybrids. In actuality, domestic bettas are probably somewhat less aggressive than the wild ones (I'm not talking about fighters which have been bred specificaly for fighting) precisely because we've bred them for generations without considering temperament.
You can see the effect of ignoring temperament by considering certain strains (I think many yellows are) that are more aggressive than others. This is because they are all decended (more or less) from the same individuals and therefore all carry some similar genes. It so happens that the few ancestors from which the strain decended were a little more aggressive. Over generations, you find the strain develops into a more aggressive one compared to others as it's only being bred for color/finnage etc - temperament is largely overlooked.
In the wild, being highly territorial and capeable of defending your territory is obviously beneficial - you can protect your patch of water, ensure your food isn't 'stolen' and prevent rival males from breeding with females wondering through your area. These things increase your chances of passing on your genes - many of which will be responsible for your aggression. The result is that your offspring are also aggressive. Obviously also, there is a limmit - if the fish become too aggressive, they'll start killing off females or siblings early on - and then the frequency of genes responsible for aggression decreases.
In captivity, it would be perfectly feasable to breed bettas - generation after generation - to be less aggressive (you could use a mirror to test aggression - fights are entirely unecesary). However, it wouldn't take just a few generations as you are hoping the genes that have been so successful for the past few thousand years will either mutate or have hidden, amongst them, genes that do not produce such aggressive fish. The mutation option is highly unlikely as aggression won't be down to a single gene (genes don't work like that - even the classic example of human eye color isn't down to a single gene - very few things are) but quick if it were to happen and the other option - that some bettas actually are less aggressive anyway - doesn't seem to be the case. So you'll be playing one hell of a waiting game or searching for a needle in a haystack
Either way, you are extremely unlikely to succeed and extremely likely to be wasting your time.About the suggestion that betta aggression is only partly genetic... I tend to be of the view that everything is genetic
Don't get me wrong - I only mean this in the sense that the 'basis' is genetic. Your genes set the limmits to what the 'environment' can do. Frankly, no matter how you treat young bettas, they'll become aggressive. There's a reason you have to jar males. No matter how long you keep them together, eventualy they'll have to be seperated. Simialrly, the length of a betta's fins or whether it becomes a full halfmoon or not may be to do with the environment - but no matter how you raise a fish that is geneticaly a plakat or veil tail, you cannot get long fins or a halfmoon spread. Ok - done with the rant
InaneCathode
Fishaholic
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with the fact that I'd have to go against thousands of years of evolution... and my major consern is that I don't want to have to make the maels fight... I wonder if there would be another way??? hmm... well
ahh alas... if anybody does try to do this I believe that they would make a killing on the betta market... I mean who wouldn't want a tank full of beautiful male bettas?? not me ^^ I'd love one
It's not evolution it's selective breeding <_<
'bettas' as we know them wouldnt have ever developed in the wild on their own.
If you could get your bettas to partake in a certain herbal medicine im sure they'd be MUCH more calm. Although they might just make a bubble hammock and watch animal planet all day...
Actually selective breeding over thousands of years is classified (since the damage has been done and chances are slim to non of reversile) forced evolution... Really, I'd just be returning bettas to the way they are in nature except with long fins and nicer tails
I disagree, i think attaching 'forced' to evolution is a weak nominalization punt. Evolution by definition (in this context) refers to a natural selection process. Forced-evolution is like saying 'unnatural-natural-selection'. Technically speaking, evolution has nothing to do with the changes we see in organisms over time (whether we attribute them with being positive or not). Genetically speaking, the changes are reletively easy to reverse. The long tails we see are a reletively new addition to the betta genome, it would be pretty easy to take the tails out of them. The aggression is another thing, bettas are aggressive fish. Just like gouramies and other labyrinth fish. Not that it'd be impossible to simply breed out the aggression, but it'd be a spectacular feat.
Course thats all semantics anyway
a shoal of male bettas would rock out loud.Fate2006
Fish Addict
Evolution occurs over thousands of years to in some way better the species so that it may have a better chance of survival, thousands of years ago people bred bettas for the fighting strain, this in no way benifited the fish... therfore they forced the species to evolve into something unnatural... Forced is an accurate word... Force bred to be a fighter would be better than "forced evolution" I guess...
Evolution by natural selection occurs all the time. It's not necessarily over thousands (or, rather, millions) of years. Of course, it all depends on how we define 'evolution' (and everyone's assuming the natural selection mechanism here) and whether we are referring to what is often termed 'macro-evolution' as well.
Anyway - to suggest that evolution can be 'forced' implies humans are not part of the mechanism of natural selection themselves. Why assume they are exempt? Artificial selection (that's what we've been talking about) need not be considered seperate from natural selection - just as sexual selection need not be considered seperate. It seems absurd, to me, to be making any distinctions whatever.
Fate - The suggestion that it is 'unnatural' to create 'fighting bettas' concerns me I am being very picky but I think this is a fundamental point. You assume that humans are seperate from nature - we are not. To illustrate why I have a problem, there is a species of ant that 'farms' a certain caterpillar species. They herd them and harvest a sugar-rich liquid the growing caterpillars produce. The two species have evolved, side by side, and the butteflies are dependent on the ants. This is parallel to the human-betta situation where the ant is equivalent to humans and the butterfly to the fighting betta. Is there any reason to suggest the ant is seperate from nature? Is the ant's effect on the butterfly's evolution any different to our own effect on the betta's? I don't believe there is a difference besides the (arguable) 'purpose' with which humans selected the fish - and this is irrelevant in this context. What we have done to bettas is perfectly natural.
I agree with you on the 'forced' point in the sense that we provided the selection pressures that enabled the fighting betta to 'evolve'. However, you can say the same about absolutely any selection pressure - a snow-covered environment might 'force' an arctic fox to 'evolve' white fur... etc
Anyway - to suggest that evolution can be 'forced' implies humans are not part of the mechanism of natural selection themselves. Why assume they are exempt? Artificial selection (that's what we've been talking about) need not be considered seperate from natural selection - just as sexual selection need not be considered seperate. It seems absurd, to me, to be making any distinctions whatever.
Fate - The suggestion that it is 'unnatural' to create 'fighting bettas' concerns me
I am being very picky but I think this is a fundamental point. You assume that humans are seperate from nature - we are not. To illustrate why I have a problem, there is a species of ant that 'farms' a certain caterpillar species. They herd them and harvest a sugar-rich liquid the growing caterpillars produce. The two species have evolved, side by side, and the butteflies are dependent on the ants. This is parallel to the human-betta situation where the ant is equivalent to humans and the butterfly to the fighting betta. Is there any reason to suggest the ant is seperate from nature? Is the ant's effect on the butterfly's evolution any different to our own effect on the betta's? I don't believe there is a difference besides the (arguable) 'purpose' with which humans selected the fish - and this is irrelevant in this context. What we have done to bettas is perfectly natural. I agree with you on the 'forced' point in the sense that we provided the selection pressures that enabled the fighting betta to 'evolve'. However, you can say the same about absolutely any selection pressure - a snow-covered environment might 'force' an arctic fox to 'evolve' white fur... etc
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
428 -
204 -
174 -
152 -
146 -
139 -
128 -
125 -
108 -
98 -
97 -
94 -
77 -
75 -
A
64