Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution?

the corn we eat could never occur thanks to NS. It does not drop its seeds, it does not lose its sheath, it does not break apart easily. It is related to Teosine (I think that's the name). This plant is considered to be the ancestor of commercial corn, which has come about through DS. If entering into a symbiosis with man is beneficial, corn does not show it. Oh, and Teosine has invidually wrapped seeds that break apart easily.If the commercial corn is entirely dependent on us for survival, then it has committed suicide (and I may have shot myself with this statement). We picked those traits so that it would be more beneficial to grow corn, not more beneficial for corn's survival

of course ToE is changing defintions. What about everybody's favorite theory of a heliocentric solar system. Talk about a major change in the definition of the organizational structure of our solar system. We went from having the earth at the center to the sun, and now we have a solar system, not a geo system.When science progresses, it often finds old definitions that are inadequate or false based off of the NEW INFORMATION available. So they rework it. A new, more precise definition helps progress by a allowing a better understanding. example (thouhg not scientific, it will prove my point)Joe was mad today.
mad is a vague definition, as it includes various levels of angriness.Joe was furious today.
furious is a more precise definition of how Joe was feeling.Science does this all the time.Oh, and if you use "I think that such and such is something or other" that's not a very defendable position, especially when dealing with a bunch of rationalists who love for support to be present. Instead of using an infirm "I think", actually try and find the definitions. Oh, and if you only accept your definitions, then you are truly stuck in the dark ages.

i would reply that they did not pick this path, and without our intervention the version of corn we eat would have died (never mind never having been created). There's nothing symbiotic about this relationship. Unless you want to call mankind a bunch of parasites.when did I assume that we would suddenly disappear? What if we were to just stop eating corn?

when I said died, I should have said become extinct. As far as I know, in no symbiotic relationship (in which there are those three types: commensualism, parasitism, and mutualism) does one alter the other for its own purpose.and if you remember, in first post on this topic I said I may have been shooting myself in the foot.evolution, as I understand it, has no pre-picked paths. It is not goal-oriented. Birds did not develop wings in order to fly, but fly becasue they have wings. We did not develop a brain in order to think, but rather think becasue we have a brain. I might need to clarify this at a later point.The corn, as for that matter all domesticated crops and animals, have been selected for with specific goals in mind. With corn, it was to produce a plant that would provide us with a better food source. Why do you think we introduced Russian wheat to the US? Russian wheat is better at surviving winters, and it would not surprise me that we have been hybridizing for that trait with our own wheat.

really? you contradict yourself later on another contradiction if mutualism is one type of symbiotic relationship, which the defintion you provide earlier does say, then how can you claim that mutualism is not symbiotic, or parasitism for that matter?

hey, this is this dudes brother. while i can see where you're coming from i think, which is that they are three completly different definitions but the only problem there is if you take two of the three that fall under symbitotic relationship there is only one left and though the english language is messed up why would they make two completly different words for the same thing and the other two you discluded fall under symbiotic relationship due to both of these definitions which makes your argument completly pointless along with the fact that you cannot even argue a simple arguement even a little bit on the good side. and although these is one extremly one long run on sentence it still makes more sense then your pitifull excuse for an argument.

Everyone, please ignore the post my brother made. He's a bit rude, if you couldn't tell, and while he can think, its a touch difficult to understand him a times. And I need to remember to log off when I'm finished.As far as I can tell, I'm defending the OP, in that NS and DS are two different processes. I wasn't aware of the parasites changing the behavior of the hosts, but does this have an affect on that host's evolution? The answer is most likely yes, but I should probably read that paper in full before I open my mouth.I'm not sure how one can equate a human as being the agent of NS in the domestication of animals and plants.In ToE, fitness is measured by the number of offspring one has and some other factors dealing with those offspring (if I'm not mistaken). If one has more offspring, the more your genes are present, and if they are beneficial, they will eventually become the dominant phenotype. That is the fitness of NS.The fitness we look for in crops and animals is not their ability to produce successful offspring, but their ability to provide us with a better yield. This fitness is not the same as that in NS, and therefore DS becomes a corrupted version.

agreed.

A B C D E I hope I don't have to point out the contradiction again. You give a good definition of symbiosis in quote A. You further explain it in quote B, and it is still right. Here comes the contradiction. Look at quote C. How can parasitism not be symbiotic? You include parasitism in your defintion. Look at quote D. You have the same problem. Again, how can mutualism not be symbiotic?You want to know what's funny. You contradict your contradiction. Quote E is from the post I'm directly replying to. You say that you didn't say what you actually did say. In other words, you said you never said quote D, but you did.I do agree that parasitism and mutualism are forms of a symbiotic relationship. That is correct.My correction: You only have one contradiction, not two in yuor original post. So the thrid one doesn't count either. The only contradiction you made is the parasite one. Never mind.This message has been edited by kuresu, 04-06-2006 03:36 PM

look at my edit where I see that you were right on the mutualism. I was putting in a "not" after the does. My mistake there. As to the other, let me get back to that point later.

take at look at your post, number 64 in this topic. You say parasitism is not symbiotic, and then include it in you definition of symbiotic relationships.You're right, a symbiotic relationship does not have to be parasitic because there are other forms of symbiosis. But you said that a parasitic relationship is not symbiotic in the first post, number 64And if you all will take a look at the post that you quoted from of mine, I state that our relationship with corn is symbiotic because of what I called its parasititic nature, with the understanding that parasitism is A form of symbiosis.To use modulus' example, you are saying Car(symbiosis) is not Ford(parasitism)In effect, parastism is symbiotic, as is commensualism and mutualismAnd this is why I hate Aristotle

did you at least look at yuor old post? Because you do state that. All I was doing to begin with was pointing out what appeared to be a logical contradiction.Please, do not make any more stabs at my reading ability. Especially considering that my reading level is above college level, and I'm but a high school senior taking an english class that requires extensive thought into all that literary stuff.

here's the contradiction in a nutshell.I state that our relationship with corn is not symbiotic unless you count it as a parasitic one. I never considered it to be mutualistic, but that term can take parasitic's place.This implies that the relationship is symbiotic because it is mutualistic (or parasitic).You state that symbiosis is not the same as parasitism. you then go on to define all symbiotic relatioships, which include these two.You then state that because our relationship with corn is mutualistic, it qualifies as a symbiotic relationship. Exactly what I said, but with parasitism.The whole point of that post (correct me if I'm wrong) is that my statement that the relationship is symbiotic if it is parasitic was wrong. Why else do you reply with "symbiosis is not the same as . . . ." But your statement at the end of that post is but a carbon copy of mine (with one term change). The implication then is that my statement was illogical and incorrect and that yours is logical and correct. But we said the same, d**m thing.

I did not consider our relationship with corn to be either commensualistic or mutualistic, but only parasitic. Since that was the only relationship I was considering, it makes logical sense to say that the only symbiotic relatioship would be parasitic.It also seems that you do not want to call mankind parasites, though we potentially can be and are (never mind that most parasites are incredibly small, like fleas or mosquitos).If the ecologists have separated a parasitic relationship as falling under a symbiotic relatioship, so that it is now one on its own, then what you are saying is not contraditcory.The final option is that we both misunderstood each other's post. You were trying to point out that other relationship's are symbiotic, and I was saying that our relationship with corn is symbiotic only if it is parasitic, becasue I did not consider the other two as possible descriptions of our relationship with corn. Not to say that I didn't know about them, but that I thought the relationship did not fit under those further defined categories.

it appeared to be a contradiction. Is it not illogical to say that a rectangle is not the same as a sqaure and then to include, as part of the defintion of a rectangle, a square?When I said that mutaulism could take the place of parastism in my origninal statement of "its only symbiotic if it's parasitic" I was not implying (or I did not think I was implying) that the two are the same (mutualism and parasitism), but that M would still fit into my statement for the purpose of discussion. That was why we said the same thing, for the most part. The only difference--how we classify the exact relationship.I still don't see how corn derives any benefit from our relationship. We grow it. We care for it. We control it genes. We use it. We plant it. But does it grow as a species? Does it evolve? I would say no. Everything we do for corn is soley for our benefit, or at least that's how I interpret the evidence.That first quote isn't a mistake. I did not forget or ignore the other relationships. So in order for the relationship to be symbiotic, it then has to be parasitic. You know how on a multiple-choice test, if you eliminate all possibilities except one, that last one then has to be it? I did the same thing. Nothing wrong with that.