Evolution in action?

[Rye]

I was just wondering if domesticated animals count as proof towards evolution?

We've stepped in and selected what we want and they're varying away from their wild cousins, is this living proof of evolution?

[Kuroneko]

Supporting evidence, definetely. There may be some that would purport that selective breeding isn't 'natural', but that's just weak--their attributes changed due to environmental factors (namely, people), and that's what's important. Although, many people don't deny evidence of 'micro-evolution', which is what this is. It's 'macro-evolution' (speciation) that creationists deny, and I don't think selective breeding of domesticated animals ever went that far.

Many also hold that for scientific theories, theories are neither true nor false, just valid or invalid depending on whether they adequately explain observed phenomena without contradiction. The notion of "proof" would be inapplicable to scientific theories by this account.

[neoolong]

Artificial selection, which is what that is, is covered in the theory of evolution.

To say it isn't evolution because it isn't natural just means they don't actually know what the theory of evolution holds.

[LadyTevar]

I was just wondering if domesticated animals count as proof towards evolution?

We've stepped in and selected what we want and they're varying away from their wild cousins, is this living proof of evolution?

Tricky question....

Evolution is usually seen as gradual change over time in reaction to the environment.

The problem is this: Is breeding for certain traits a reaction to the environment, or simply Human Desire?

Take a greyhound, for instance. Th original canine was a savannah dweller, according to some dog historians, and was long, lean, and built for running down prey with short bursts of speed, similar to the Cheetah today. Man, seeing this ability, started breeding to make a faster hunting dog. (Racing came later, after the first hunter looked to his fellows and said 'My dog can outrun your dog" and the bets started.)

Out of the first 'sight' dog. (Which means they hunt by seeing prey and chasing it down, not by following a scent-trail), we have the Greyhound: and from the Greyhound was bred the Irish WolfHound, the Whippet, the Scottish Deerhound, the Afghan, and the Saluki (sp). All the breeds I listed are thin and lithe, with incredible acceleration over a short distance. However, the differences are visiable even to someone with no knowledge of dog breeds.

Yet was this Evolution, or simple Breeding? The Wolfhound, the Deerhound, and the Afghan all have heavy coats of fur, needed in the cooler tempertures of their home ranges. The WolfHound and Deerhound also are very large, muscular dogs, meant for wrestling their namesakes to the ground after the chase. Meanwhile, the Greyhound, Whippet, Afghan, and Saluki chase rabbits and other small prey, which requires more quickness and agility but less power. The smooth short coats of the Greyhound, Whippet, and Saluki also reflect the warmer weather in their home ranges.

Again, Breeding? Or Evolution?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Ah, but isn't breeding artificial evolution?

[Joe]

Ah, but isn't breeding artificial evolution?

Exactly. The dogs that are most genetically suitable to live with humans are the ones that are bred the most, and over time, their genes take over the breed.

[Kuroneko]

The problem is this: Is breeding for certain traits a reaction to the environment, or simply Human Desire?

It's a false division. Humans are an integral part of the environment for domesticated animals, and "Human Desire" is included in that. The fact that it has more exreme effects than any 'natural' environmental factor is itself irrelevant to evolution.

[XaLEv]

Evolution is simply heritable genetic change in a population. What drives these changes is largely irrelevant; that they take place is what matters. Natural selection is only one selection mechanism. There is also sexual selection and artificial selection, maybe others I can't think of.

One of my biggest peeves about evolution (or rather, the perception of it) is that people often feel that only evolution via natural selection is valid, or that it can only take place via natural selection.

[AdmiralKanos]

Selective breeding is simply applied evolution theory, just like artillery is applied ballistic kinematics.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The variety of dog species now stands testament to the ability for a single species to evolve branches in the family future of said organism.

[LadyTevar]

The variety of dog species now stands testament to the ability for a single species to evolve branches in the family future of said organism.

And the problems that several species suffer from (Heart Disease, Hip Displacia, etc.) is also traced to breeding for Pure Lines.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Supporting evidence, definetely. There may be some that would purport that selective breeding isn't 'natural', but that's just weak--their attributes changed due to environmental factors (namely, people), and that's what's important. Although, many people don't deny evidence of 'micro-evolution', which is what this is. It's 'macro-evolution' (speciation) that creationists deny, and I don't think selective breeding of domesticated animals ever went that far.

Many also hold that for scientific theories, theories are neither true nor false, just valid or invalid depending on whether they adequately explain observed phenomena without contradiction. The notion of "proof" would be inapplicable to scientific theories by this account.

But I think when people use the word, "proof," they are in fact only looking for validation of the theory.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually (while I may be displaying an uninformed state to some extent) it strikes me that the examples of canine variations are only demonstrative of adaptation, not speciation.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Actually (while I may be displaying an uninformed state to some extent) it strikes me that the examples of canine variations are only demonstrative of adaptation, not speciation.

I suppose a better example would be West Californian lizards.

[Kuroneko]

Many also hold that for scientific theories, theories are neither true nor false, just valid or invalid depending on whether they adequately explain observed phenomena without contradiction. The notion of "proof" would be inapplicable to scientific theories by this account.

But I think when people use the word, "proof," they are in fact only looking for validation of the theory.

Nevertheless, a common attitude is that once some fact is confirmed, the issue somehow becomes immutable, whereas all it really shows is that the theory is superior to those previous. My point was that there is no such thing as complete validation under that philosophy of science; theories are more or less provisional until (and if) a better account comes along.

[Darth Wong]

Actually (while I may be displaying an uninformed state to some extent) it strikes me that the examples of canine variations are only demonstrative of adaptation, not speciation.

A sufficiently large amount of adaptation will eventually create incompatibility, hence speciation. What mechanism do you feel will abruptly rise up and stop further adaptation at some invisible point, in order to prevent speciation? Do you have evidence of this imaginary stopper-mechanism?

[Kuroneko]

A sufficiently large amount of adaptation will eventually create incompatibility, hence speciation. What mechanism do you feel will abruptly rise up and stop further adaptation at some invisible point, in order to prevent speciation? Do you have evidence of this imaginary stopper-mechanism?

Yes, that is the reasonable position. However, there are those who, despite accepting 'micro-evolution', refuse to be reasonable and categorically deny speciation. It would be nice to have an explicit example if for no other reason than to make them go away.

[Admiral Valdemar]

A sufficiently large amount of adaptation will eventually create incompatibility, hence speciation. What mechanism do you feel will abruptly rise up and stop further adaptation at some invisible point, in order to prevent speciation? Do you have evidence of this imaginary stopper-mechanism?

Yes, that is the reasonable position. However, there are those who, despite accepting 'micro-evolution', refuse to be reasonable and categorically deny speciation. It would be nice to have an explicit example if for no other reason than to make them go away.

Pity their brain cell can't grasp the simple premise that micro evolution in a cumulative fashion produces macro evolution. It's so stupid.

Look, I can make a car by putting this small nut onto this bolt like so. Do these small tasks enough and you get a car. Not so with these people, no amount of small additions or changes will get you anything new, just a pile of random junk.

[lgot]

Irony, that the "father" of Natural Selection, Darwin used a lot of domestic species to his study and gave a great attention to human interference and had already critics for doing this back then...

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually (while I may be displaying an uninformed state to some extent) it strikes me that the examples of canine variations are only demonstrative of adaptation, not speciation.

A sufficiently large amount of adaptation will eventually create incompatibility, hence speciation. What mechanism do you feel will abruptly rise up and stop further adaptation at some invisible point, in order to prevent speciation? Do you have evidence of this imaginary stopper-mechanism?

Well, there it is -- the dividing line between adaptation and speciation -- procreation. So the question then becomes, can any variety of the dogs from the example above create fertile offspring with any of the other varieties?

But that line of demarcation is definitely there, in my opinion.

[Utsanomiko]

[Creationist]
Nonsense, just becasue it may prove genetic changes through 'micro-evolution', doesn't mean there can be genetic changes through 'macro-evolution'.

Are you fanatical scientists also going to claim that turning a small cup of water into ice with a freezer proves that this supposed 'macro-matter-transition' can cause ice ages? Everyone knows water only miraculously turns to ice becasue freezers run on Jesus Power.

[/Creationist]

[Queeb Salaron]

Hmmm.... it all depends. Would you make the same case for slaves?

[Darth Wong]

A sufficiently large amount of adaptation will eventually create incompatibility, hence speciation. What mechanism do you feel will abruptly rise up and stop further adaptation at some invisible point, in order to prevent speciation? Do you have evidence of this imaginary stopper-mechanism?

Well, there it is -- the dividing line between adaptation and speciation -- procreation.

Are you on drugs? Procreation is just another word for reproduction, and it is an essential component of evolutionary adaptation. What the fuck have you been smoking?

So the question then becomes, can any variety of the dogs from the example above create fertile offspring with any of the other varieties?

After only a few thousand years of selective breeding? Probably. But look at how large the structural differences are between, say, a chihuahua and a Great Dane, and ask yourself if you multiply those differences by a thousand, would they still be compatible.

But that line of demarcation is definitely there, in my opinion.

Yet you have provided not a shred of evidence for it. So what do you base your claims of its existence on? Gut feeling? Tarot cards? The voices in your head?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I don't know about in vitro fertilisation, (the true test of ferility) but great dane males can't breed with female chihuahuas!
Male chihuahuas breeding with female great danes is merely comedy, not a "mission impossible."

[Trytostaydead]

I guess you can use it, but that's stretching it a bit. For microevolution you can definately use it, not sure on its application for macro though.

Artificial Selection is mainly a tool for ethology and such though I think and has fallen out of favor though in that field.