Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 10 of 37 (735893)
08-27-2014 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
08-27-2014 2:43 PM


So I work in the chemical industry. . .
It's a relief to find someone who views things the way I do. People always give a strange look when I try to explain that gasoline is organic.
What people are trying to convey is the idea that humanity screws things up, so they want as little human intervention as possible. However, they often ignore how long we have been messing around with our common cultivars. I see no reason why 10,000 years of selective breeding (i.e. artificial selection) is less of a problem than 20 years of genetic recombination in a lab.
Like you, I often ask people if they would rather have a hot dog or a glass of 100% all natural organic hemlock tea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2014 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-27-2014 5:49 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 16 of 37 (735907)
08-27-2014 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tangle
08-27-2014 5:22 PM


Probably more precise to use the phrase anthropogenic selection when referring to human intervention in the 'natural' selection process.
That is probably the best suggestion so far.
What we create is an environment where the fittest individuals are those that meet human preferences. As long as we select based on phenotype, then we are following natural selection.
Where anthropogenic selection can diverge from natural selection is if we select based on genotype. Natural selection can not "see" gene sequences, so it always selects based on phenotype. This results in interesting adaptations and allows genotype to be independent of phenotype. If humans select based on gene sequence, then we are ending that independent relationship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tangle, posted 08-27-2014 5:22 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 32 of 37 (735949)
08-28-2014 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stile
08-28-2014 9:11 AM


Re: Missing the Real Issue
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.
As a counter example, we can look at ants and colonies of ants who take honeydew from aphids:
[Symbiotic relationships between ants and aphids] - PubMed
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.
Overall, I think we are getting hung up on the details of the analogy. More than anything, Darwin was looking for a way to communicate his ideas with his readers. One really good way of doing this is to use an analogy where you can say, "It appears that you all accept the idea that Mechanism A occurs here. Well, I am saying that Mechanism A also happens over here." In this case, he referred to animal breeding which most people understand and accept.
Whether or not artificial and natural selection or 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stile, posted 08-28-2014 9:11 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 08-28-2014 1:14 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 35 of 37 (735957)
08-28-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
08-28-2014 2:34 PM


Re: Missing the Real Issue
For the sheep, I suppose you could ask: What is the desired trait that we are selecting for?
That's an easy one. We are selecting for temperment, wool production, meat production, time to maturity, short time between giving birth and becoming fertile again, and milk production.
These are some of the basic things we have selected for in all of the species we have domesticated for food/clothing.
Interestingly, our domesticated animals have also selected for us.
An Evolutionary Whodunit: How Did Humans Develop Lactose Tolerance? : The Salt : NPR
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-28-2014 2:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-28-2014 4:41 PM Taq has 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