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.