Yes I do know about spontaneous mutations and that there are some 'common' ones in the wild- I saw a blue deer mouse at work the other day, and I happen to know about most spontaneous mutations found in mice. What I was saying there was what you pointed out-
It's true that selective inbreeding helps solidify them
That is why I refered to line and inbreeding- I did not mean to suggest that inbreeding and linebreeding
produced new mutations, but that it made it possible for the wide spread of new mutations.
The kind of intellectual ambiguity you're showing ("you never really know") is indicative of an approach which does not display an adequate grasp of basic genetics and/or a mindset which does not value the immense capabilities of the human mind to understand, make sense of, and accurately predict naturally-occuring phenomena like mouse coat color.
I resent the accusation that I am not intelligent, or that I under estimate the ability of the human mind. I studied Major Histocompatibility Complex in college and if you know anything about immunology and MHC then you would know that it is not an easy subject to grasp, and the genetic complexities involved are immense. I can also appreciate that people have an amazing ability to dream up fantastic things, but on average, most people limit what might
actually happen. As you yourself have said:
They are predictable parts of the world, whereas what "may" happen is just conjecture.
You have already said that this sort of thing won't happen.
Really? Are you so quick to limit the great possibilities that
can happen? You have accused me of having:
a mindset which does not value the immense capabilities of the human mind to understand, make sense of, and accurately predict naturally-occuring phenomena like mouse coat color.
But
you are displaying a mind that
cannot comprehend the vast immense capabilities of genes to mutate. I am making the assumption that you believe in macro evolution (and I am sorry if I am wrong), and if you do, then surely you cannot say that the genetic code of a mouse does not carry the potential for huge changes that are limited by nothing. If you subscribe to the belief that one celled organisms can change into men, then why are you so quick to say that orange mice could never show orange stripes? Is that any different then my charge that God can do with genes what He will? Either viewpoint concedes that change can and will happen- the difference is only in who or what is making the changes. One is chance the other, God.
As to God, it is sad to see an age when the mere mention of Him would result in a response like that. If you can allow in your mind the idea of me having a belief in God, then you might see why the "concept of God"
is very relavent to all areas of life,
including biological science. If you believed in a being that
created mice, then how could it
not be relevant to casually bring Him up when discussing rodent color genetics. Just to clarify, I was not trying to peach my beliefs at anyone, I was just casully remarking how we cannot imagine what sort of mutations might arise. Although they are 'man made' (in the sense that humans inserted DNA that God created to be in jellyfish) there are neon green mice that glow in the dark, so is it so very far out there to think that a mouse might mutate to show orange on orange stripes?
As for tigers: If you have heard of the debate surrounding the 'maltese' tiger, you would also know that a similar sentiment was felt about white and golden tigers before they had been seen. There is a difference between theoretical knowledge ('Yes, I admit that a white tiger is
possible, however it is not likely!') and physcial knowledge ('Yes, I saw a white tiger in the zoo- you can see it too with your own eyes!")
This was the knowledge I was speaking of when I said:
no one ever really thought you would see white or golden tigers
Thus, the reason I said 'see' and 'really'; as in "Yes, it is possible, but you will never
really see one!"