Artificial Selection - Is the term simply convenient?

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.

quote:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

Hi AppleScratch,
I feel your concept of the dog being 'natural' because it was a natural extention of human intervention, to be stretching the idea of what is natural and what is artificial.
I am guilty of that too. I like to say that everything in the universe is natural. How could it be otherwise?
I suppose it is important to define ones terms concerning natural and artificial.
Otherwise technically if it exist in the universe it is natural.
Just look at Global warming, it is as natural as can be!! Or at least the Oil companies and the Koch brothers would have us believe that.

---

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!

quote:

---

IMHO the real point isn't the man as part of nature part though it stems from us poking at things.
"Natural" selection and "Artificial" selection differ in that man is not (or little ) involved in the former and centrally involved in the later. But that isn't the important fundamental difference.

​

"Natural" selection has no end goal, no foresight, no global picture. Nothing beyond this individual member of a species and it's success or failure.

​

"Artificial" selection may have a very definite goal (short or long term), it incorporates the whole picture (that may be selecting individuals to increase the diversity of a rare species, e.g.). It may involve selecting for things that aren't part of the environment yet but are expected (e.g., higher heat tolerance of crops).

​

Yes, it requires us to do this but I don't see that as being the issue. If we were selecting individuals based on a coin flip then our effects may not be different from "artificial" selection even though we would be selecting.

---

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.

quote:

---

Well in that case we're not selecting which ones to kill and which ones not to kill in order with the intention of producing a new type.

---

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?

Can you elaborate?Is elimination not considered selection against?How am I not selecting 'for' sheep and 'against' the wolves in this scenario?

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.

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!

That pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I appreciate the replies, interesting things to read!