|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Artificial Selection - Is the term simply convenient? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Hello!
This might be a trivial question, but I am not able to find any good discussion on it elsewhere and wanted to hear what some of you might say. Main Question: Is the concept of Artificial Selection just a convenient terminology, or is it considered scientifically differentiated from Natural Selection? I am not able to grasp why human intention is considered to transcend natural process, at least when speaking scientifically. As an example of my thoughts: If humans breed a new type of dog that is born with no legs at all, and 'decide' that it is cute, and 'decide' that they will take care of it despite it's obvious doom without this relationship...this still seems like it should be considered natural scientifically. Evolution naturally produced a being that has thoughts about cuteness and willingness to spend its own energy caring for the other creature, creating an environment where that creature is fit for survival. Is there some massive miss-step that I am making with this line of reason? Thanks in advance, and please feel free to point out my ignorance, that is what I desire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined:
|
quote: Thanks! I have been lurking here for years just reading. Sorry to have my first post be such a bore! Thanks for the replies, not much to discuss on this one lol! I was just curious if there was something more substantial to the terminology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
quote: I agree that it stretches the bounds of a 'useful' definition of Natural, and that was why the example was pretty much absurd. That was really my only question though. There is no difference in artificial and natural other than the convenience of human language and discussion, which was my first assumption but wanted to see if smarter people than myself disagreed!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
quote: This is something that I considered also, and I do agree with you that it is easy to perceive this difference. Ideas like the ones you posted were the only reason I felt compelled to even bring it up at all. The lines just get so blurry that it seems like an unscientific concept to my own ways of thinking. You seem to agree with most of what I had read, where deliberate intent or goals for the future are factors in differentiating artificial from natural. Would humans hunting a predator to extinction be considered Artificial Selection by your definitions? We determine with our foresight that this species poses a threat to our lives, and become a tremendous selective pressure against it. This example seems more mundane than proactively selecting crop traits that make cultivation easier. I feel less tempted to claim it as special or artificial, but don't know why in any scientifically justifiable way. I am honestly not trying to be dense I see why it makes discussion easier to have the distinction, I just can't get to any actual basis for it that is consistent, and it becomes interesting to ponder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
quote: I have a herd of sheep, and kill off the wolves in order for my herd to survive. This allows more successful survival of sheep. This provides more food and utility for myself than if I did not kill the wolves. I have a crop of corn. I kill off the new plants that have smaller kernels. This allows more successful survival of the larger kernels. This provides more food and utility for myself than if I did not kill the smaller kerneled plants. Is one of these Artificial selection and the other not? Is attempting to produce a new type, rather than prevent an existing type from undue pressure a difference that I don't understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Can you elaborate?
Is elimination not considered selection against? How am I not selecting 'for' sheep and 'against' the wolves in this scenario?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Can you give a full definition of selection as it applies to biological evolution that we can use for this thread?
Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary lists it as: A natural or artificial process that favors or induces survival and perpetuation of one kind of organism over others that die or fail to produce offspring. If there is another one that is more accurate, I'd like to use it instead . I am not formally researching this field so I may have poor word choice and definitions in my brain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Very helpful, thank you.
I don't really think there is much else to discuss about this one from my end, I thought there might have been more to it that I was just missing. Thanks for all of the responses!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AppleScratch Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days) Posts: 9 Joined: |
Totally agreed. It's not really a big deal what we call it as long as we understand the concepts of what's going on. Just babbling for the sake of seeing my thoughts on the internet. That pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I appreciate the replies, interesting things to read!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024