I would say they are no more freakish than mules and dog/wolf hybrids.  Or dog/coyote, or domestic cat/smallish wild cat or........

For show and display?  More than likely the first one or two were by accident.  The female was in heat, and no one thought she would - let alone could - breed with the other species of big cat.

Species are not neatly separated into groups.  Sure, lizards will not mate with elephants.  But the line between canids is famously blurry - dogs, wolves, coyotes, and African wild dogs can all interbreed and have fertile offspring even though they have been separated genetically by 10s if not 100s of thousands of years.  And the domestic dog likely qualifies as a ring species - where similar size dogs can reproduce, but it is not physically possible for a Great Dane and a Chihuahua to mate.

"A species is a reproductively isolated group of organisms."  And it is up to the critters involved just exactly what that means. 

This blurriness between related species is most likely a good thing evolutionarily.  If there is a sudden change in the environment, perhaps enough of the crosses are fertile and perhaps some of them can survive better in the changed ecological niches.  Perhaps.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

On biological ground, we don't really go with the idea of there being species. The was formulated before Darwin and is thus rooted in the idea of there being “kinds” of critters. The modern ground is about how close diferent critters are related.

Do a web search for “cladistics”.

As far as out of species breeding goes, I claim mixed feelings on that one. For the parents, it sounds like kind of “the only chance is really ugly and is fairly different” However, inbreeding is well known to cause huge issues. Outbreeding reduces that.

I can see the concern with outbreeding. As an atheist, the idea of fucking a chimp is like, OK if I had no other option then sure. I would rather get busy with a skank, slut or hooker (all of which happen).

As a cat person, I spent 18 years owned by a dude who was part Asian snow leopard. I am currently looking for another. BTW, they are immune to FIV (kitty AIDS).

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well natural, I don't really see a life of pain here.

If there is a cruelty aspect to this one, it could be captivity but I suspect not so much. Cats are clearly adaptable to the deal. Rather, the problem that I see is what is being done to the parents to force a breeding that otherwise would not happen.

Seriously, dad has to be all about “Damn! No stripes but she smells right and I am horny as all fuck. Gotta go for it, not much choice.”

I wasn't thinking about that, but yes, I agree with that too.

Anybody?

Well, it should, but it doesn't. That's because their 'kind' is never defined in a way that can be disproven by example. If you gave those examples to a creationist they would respond (very predictably):

But a mule is still of the horse-donkey kind. Even my 5 year old daughter can see that they are the same kind. A mule is not a snake or a fish, it's the same kind as a horse or a donkey.

A liger is still a cat. It's not a bird or a jellyfish. When evolutionists can show a tiger giving birth to a jellyfish, then I'll believe them. Never going to happen! Evolutionists are soooo ignorant and stupid that they think evolution means a cat can give birth to a jellyfish! HAHAHAHA! Stupid fucking morans!!!

I've got TWO words for any athiest who believes evilution: Crocoduck!

That crocoduck pic is out of date. They found one for real.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I already covered this before but it appears to have been missed.

Species is a concept that predates Darwin. The current deal is just how close two populations are related. If they are close enough to breed, then the difference is not a big deal. If they are a bit farther, then sterile offspring are likely. If they are even farther, then no offspring is the general outcome.

Then too, the middle ground gets into murky territory. Where you end up with some percentage of infertile offspring, you will also have the complmentary percentage of fertile offspring. I should know because I spent eighteen years with a domestic cat who was part Asian Snow Leopard.

The health issues are rarely all that big with deliberate outbreeds. The idea breaks the issues caused by the deliberate inbreeding that already goes on. My Bengal was probably immune to a good number of diseases that kill other domestic cats.

Does a liger have specific physical issues because of it's size? I would not be surpirsed but then every critter has issues regardless. Giantism might be one but who can say? How many are there to even study?

Giantism actually exists in all species. Because it is pretty much always related to something going really wrong otherwise, reproduction is limited. I know that it happens in snakes because I know a few breeders. Orthopedic issues seem unlikely there but they tend to a fairly reduced life span anyway.

Come on. You know what I mean. Real rip and tear, tooth and claw kills. The lion thing sounds right.

Besides elephants are winning against humans by becoming tuskless. Anyone want to talk about the speed of evolution? 150 years to losing the reason people kill them and maybe only 60 years before the selective pressure became significant.

Seriously that was sort of a joke comment. Experimental evolution is a bit more doable than experimental cosmology. I'm always looking for ways to expand the experimental method. I am a fundamentalist physicist.

I thought zoos were passed that these days? Not since I was a kids have I seen animals in cages. Granted their "natural" setting is rarely natural but they are quite wide open and have places to retreat if they get tired of being entertained by the passing two legged food sticks. Generally they hang around outside and watch.

In return they get to die of old age. Their food is parasite free. Their diseases and teeth problems are treated. Most of them are encouraged to mate. Absent human intellectual interests, what a life! And if they are intellectual, they can study the meat sticks.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Now that is something that you and I can agree on. In fact, I have already said it twice in this thread just with different words.

Also, there is the matter of ring species. Given a large enough area, what would be one “kind” of critter can mate with it's neighbors. However, as you move farther away, the odds of a successful breeding drop until it is no longer possible.

One example are the chiclid fish of lake Tanganyika. It is actually fairly common among aquarium keepers to mix populations and end up with cross breeds but some combinations just don't ever happen.

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Yes, Lions can take down the big ones. Leopards can take down smaller ones. In Asia, tigers get the job done.

I wonder about your idea that tusks are getting shorter though. Do you have a link for that?

Remember that tusks never stop growing. So the most prized kills would be the oldest elephants. Hence, there should be a larger percentage in the overall population of younger elephants today than what existed a couple of centuries ago.

You may be right and I would love to see the link if you have it. Remember also that the ban on ivory trading has only been in place for less than half the agerage life span of elephants in the wild. If my logic is sound, the big tuskers will be back in like 20 to 30 years.

I know. You never know who your audience it going to be so saying the same thing in different ways reaches more people. I debated posting at all as you had said it. So I chose a more "technical" version. Way back before the talk.origins website got all encyclopediaish it carried some of my articles. That was a very long time ago.

The Dawkins concept of speciation in isolation does not mean they were separated on different continents when they drifted. It means simply far enough apart that the gene drift is "slow" and also that speciation does not have to happen it just does. It leaves open all kinds of professional publications on how slow is slow enough to permit speciation to be a possibility but since it is not required to happen it permits even more papers to be written.

Only anti-racist idiot crusaders refuse to see how human divisions occurred. If the world was all a flat plain we are promiscuous enough that differentiation would be trivial. But mountains, deserts and oceans separating us prevents homogenization. And it doesn't take even that much, just different climates for seven identified races to develop in Africa. Bantu and Zulu can interbreed they simply choose not to. I await some very interesting publications on how they got separated long ago.

Chiclids are the example of "do not" interbreed although there is no credible reason to suggest they cannot. But it is sort of a chicken and egg problem. Does speciation lead to new behavior or does new behavior lead to speciation? The former seems obvious but how can the latter exist without the former existing first?

Not off hand but google it. But is NO tusks at all not shorter. Surprised you haven't come across it. It was recognized decades ago. It is like cave dwellers losing eyes. In the old days tusks aided survival and mating. These day they are a cause of early death prior to many offspring. They take calories to grow so they are lost like eyes for cave dwellers as not only no benefit but a deficit.
 

Strawman = Failure.