Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Artificial Selection - Is the term simply convenient?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 3 of 37 (735873)
08-27-2014 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AppleScratch
08-27-2014 12:51 PM


AppleScratch writes:
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.
The difference you are describing (human intention transcending natural process) is not the difference that is attempting to be clarified when discussing Artificial vs. Natural Selection.
Artificial vs. Natural selection is basically used to reference human-interference vs. no-human-interference.
Think of it the same as "artificial flavor" vs. "natural flavor."
They are both "natural" in the sense that they are both made of things that exist in nature (chemicals exist on their own just as fine as anything else).
But, again, the point is to differentiate between human-interference-to-achieve-the-flavor vs. no-human-interference-to-achieve-the-flavor.
Is there some massive miss-step that I am making with this line of reason?
You're just using a secondary definition for the word "natural" (natural vs. imaginary or supernatural) and applying it to some specific scientific terminology that is using a different definition of the word (human-interference vs. no-human-interference).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AppleScratch, posted 08-27-2014 12:51 PM AppleScratch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2014 2:43 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 4 of 37 (735874)
08-27-2014 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AppleScratch
08-27-2014 12:51 PM


How rude of me
Oh, and welcome to EvC!
Hope you stick around, there's lots to read and learn around here.
Frolic and enjoy!
...don't worry, I'm just weird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AppleScratch, posted 08-27-2014 12:51 PM AppleScratch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by AppleScratch, posted 08-27-2014 2:43 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 6 of 37 (735876)
08-27-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2014 2:20 PM


Swoooosh
Like a ninja in the dark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2014 2:20 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 9 of 37 (735880)
08-27-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by AppleScratch
08-27-2014 2:43 PM


Re: How rude of me
AppleScratch writes:
I have been lurking here for years just reading.
I did that before I started posting too.
Get in there! Spread your thoughts and expand your ideas! And other motivational things!!
Sorry to have my first post be such a bore!
Trust me, the only thing that's boring is when someone doesn't make a post...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AppleScratch, posted 08-27-2014 2:43 PM AppleScratch has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 30 of 37 (735937)
08-28-2014 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by AppleScratch
08-27-2014 6:24 PM


Re: Missing the Real Issue
AppleScratch writes:
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.
My thoughts would be that you are not doing any selection on the sheep. Therefore the sheep are still undergoing natural selection.
Hmmmm... thought about that. Maybe you are doing artificial selection on the sheep too. That is, without any intervention can we safely assume that the wolves would indeed hunt some of the sheep? If so, then you are artificially removing this selective pressure and therefore causing some amount of artificial selection onto the sheep.
You are, however, definitely doing some selection on the wolves... therefore, the wolves are undergoing artificial selection. You are artificially adding a selective pressure on the wolves for them to not eat sheep. Whether that actually has an effect on the wolves' population is another question... but that's irrelevant. You are still causing some artificial selection on 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.
I don't see any trick to this one. Seems like simple artificial selection to me. Your interference is adding a selective pressure onto the corn growth.
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?
Maybe
I'm certainly no biologist and would drop my line of argument if anyone with such authority says otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by AppleScratch, posted 08-27-2014 6:24 PM AppleScratch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 08-28-2014 12:57 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 33 of 37 (735950)
08-28-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
08-28-2014 12:57 PM


Re: Missing the Real Issue
Taq writes:
Ant behavior towards aphids spans the gamut from straight foraging to actually protecting aphids. When ants protect aphids from their natural predators, is this "artificial" selection? I think most people would describe it as natural selection.
I would certainly describe it as natural selection, there is no human involvement.
My point with the sheep was not that the selection pressure (wolves) were removed. My point was that humans did the removing.
That's what moves it from 'natural' to 'artificial.'
The only fine-line-problem I can see with that is if humans unintentionally affect an ecosystem.
For example: humans build houses/shelters to live in. We have built all sorts of cities and all sorts of animals (like pigeons) have adapted to live in our cities as well. Is this artificial selection on the pigeons because of the human involvement? Or is it natural selection because there was no motivated intention against the pigeon, it's just what humans (and pigeons) "naturally" do...
Whether or not artificial and natural selection are different, or if they differ on the finer points, is really not the point. If the analogy of animal breeding helped you understand natural selection, then the point was made.
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. My post count isn't going to increase itself, you know!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 08-28-2014 12:57 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-28-2014 2:34 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 37 by AppleScratch, posted 08-28-2014 5:19 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024