Evolution minus the obfuscation - one last inquiry from me

All apologies for beating this dead horse again, but I was wondering something.Much of the debate on the truth of evolution branches off into its many subtopics. These debates get very wordy, very elaborate and bring up endless point and counterpoint on every little detail.While I am definately not trying to discredit detailed debate, I was just wondering why this obfuscation and confusion occurs when the core of the topic really isn't that complicated or hard to understand at all.Here's what I'm getting at: Why isn't something simple like Dog breeding enough to prove the existence of evolution?For the sake of argument, just for a moment, forget about Darwin, forget about alleles, and completely forget human origins and monkeys.If breeders wants a specific type of Dog, artificial selection is applied to many generations of a type of dog until the breeders(or more likely, their descendants) end up with an animal that has a silky, shiny coat, is rediculously miniaturized, or has a long slender frame for running quickly, etc.Do you see what I mean?You are right in thinking that changing something superficial like the length of an animals legs alone will not result in speciation. But there's no reason to believe it must stop there (unless you believe in some silly copout contruction like Macro/Micro evolution.)More details hereSo what do you guys think? Can't evolution be debated from simple points and facts? Does selective breeding not count as any sort of evolution or what?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

sure, but this requires a mildly rational opponent. A lot of creationists don't buy dog breeds as a proof of evolution, because it does not do "macro-evolution". granted, they have yet to explain what would prevent NS from actually walking to LA from NYC.and scientists tend to define macro as speciation (at least, they did in my bio book). in fact, creos used to too, until we finally proved that speciation did and does happen. then they changed the definition so they could still say "macro hasn't been proved".as said, it requires someone who's at least mildly rational. good luck finding one.

A better example would be breeding horses to run in derbies. Part of the problem is that there is a compromise in where the energy is spent in the development of an animal, and a point is reached where a horse can run faster than the others but is more likely to break a leg running because the bones are as narrow as possible for the running.The problem is that you are waiting for an opportune mutation to then take advantage of with selection - you cannot cause a desired mutation to occur. Without the mutation all you can do is optimize the use of existing {variations\genes\alleles}. There is no real debate on basic evolution - the part creationists usually call "micro"evolution - the change in heritable traits in a population over time (change is frequency of alleles, change in species over time, etc). This is the basic tool of evolution. This is also what creationists call change within kinds. Breeding of dogs or horses is still "micro"evolution, subject to artificial selection PLUS natural selection.The debate is really more about common ancestry (that's the part that conflicts with the biblical creation account) and the apparent level of change needed for the observed differences in taxonomic groups - the part creationists call "macro"evolution.The evolutionist position is that "macro"evolution is the result of accumulated "micro"evolution over longer periods of time (than are needed for speciation), and the creationist position seems to be that it has to be faster than speciation and must be due to some other mechanism (although it is hard to get a clear picture of this -- see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? where I tried to get an answer). Yes it can, but you can't lead a horse to water and make it drink either. Especially if it is dead-set against drinking.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

The problem is that you are waiting for an opportune mutation to then take advantage of with selection - you cannot cause a desired mutation to occur. Without the mutation all you can do is optimize the use of existing {variations\genes\alleles}.

---

That's right. You cannot create mutation by breeding and that's why breeding has nothing common with evolution even if the author of this thread thinks that it supports it very well. You just pick up something that already exists. Try to breed peas as great as basket-ball. You wouldn't success because there are limits you never cross. However long you will breed German shepard to have neck like girraffe you will never succeed - random(?) mutation for long neck is somehow not present in German shepard.

You cannot use breeding to create a mutation. Unfortunately for the creo position, that fact is irrelevant. Mutations happen all the time, whether in directed breeding or in mating in nature, and your either deliberate or ignorant misunderstanding of that fact will not change it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This is an example of just what the problem is. This is false. Denial does not make it go away either.Evolution is the change in heritable traits within a population, the change if the frequency of alleles, the change in species over time.Breeding accomplishes this. If breeding did NOT accomplish this then there would be NO results of breeding programs - such efforts would be wasted time and energy. Random mutation for change inn the lengths of necks do occur. Thus you have some breeds of dogs with longer necks than average, and some breeds with shorter necks than average. The mutation for additional neck vertebrae has also occurred in many species, not just giraffes, and they have been selected FOR in many species, not just giraffes. Perhaps you can think of one. Mostly white, but some are black.But the real issue is that you are not talking about basic evolution, but the development over long periods of time of a feature that is significantly - to human perceptions - different enough to be remarkable - to human perceptions. You are talking about "macro"evolution changes yes? But what are those limits and where are they imposed? When you look at the genetic level there are the same basic molecular patterns with the 4 basic bases marching in pairs: what prevents this from rearranging gradually over time from pattern {goose} to pattern {swan}?Enjoy.And if you have the time, drop in on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and help define these concepts.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi RAZD,Just a small correction. While breeding programs will take advantage of chance mutations that happen to be in the right direction, this isn't a common occurrence. Most breeding programs only hope to change the allele mix, but stay alert to news of favorable mutations that emerge in other breeding populations, or even in their own if they're lucky.Plant breeders will often seek widely for variants with the traits they desire, equivalent to increasing the size of the breeding population and thereby increasing the chance of uncovering a favorable mutation. I think that plant breeding has used radiation in the past to increase the mutation rate thereby increasing the chance of a favorable mutation, but more recently, at least with cash crops, they take the more deterministic approach of genetic engineering.Anyway, while the history of breeding is full of examples of variants that emerged due to a mutation, mutation cannot be depended upon, and most breeding programs use a strategy of mating organisms that already possess the desired traits.--Percy

MartinV:

quote:

---

You cannot create mutation by breeding and that's why breeding has nothing common with evolution even if the author of this thread thinks that it supports it very well.

---

Subbie:

quote:

---

You cannot use breeding to create a mutation.

---

I'm sorry, but I'm quite sure you're both missing something here. Of course I'm not saying that it is your intentions or your willpower that cause an animal to change a quality, that would be silly. (Sorry if that's not what you're saying)When a litter of puppies is born, they will not be perfectly identical, of course. There will be very slight genetic differences in each(Some will have darker fur, some will be more susceptible to certain diseases, etc). A breeder then picks picks the puppy from the group that has a quality that is closest to that which is desired. This puppy will be allowed to reproduce with another who shared its special trait.Repeat ad nauseum. Breeders are not suffering from delusion, they are actually changing the species over time. Hence toy dogs and dog shows.Edited by Drewsky, : Bad html

I fully understand what you were saying. I was simply responding to what I thought Martin was saying about mutations. As far as whether he understood what you were saying, I'll leave that to him, but his response suggests he didn't.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Ah, alright then Subbie. All's well.I guess I should know that even if you try to argue that 2+2=4, you'll get people who respond with"2 plus 2 is 22"
or
"2 +2 also = 1 modulo 3. (And it equals 0 modulo 2, as in binary arithmetic.)"Because people are funny. And I should have known better than to try and start a thread with the premise of reduced obfuscation! Haha.Confusion is fun, and if you bury a simple argument under enough garbage, the wrong people can sometimes sound right![edit]
Woah, RazD, "mangled metaphors and equine sadistic necrophilia" I just noticed how incredibly odd that is. Who used a metaphor? Who was being sadistic and what does necrophilia have to do with anything? Equine was the only word that seems to have anything to do with this thread at all. Or maybe it's an inside joke? lol.Edited by Drewsky, : RazD