At least it reaches theory rank, where as the alternative, one man one woman, is no more than a myth.
not really. the start is not understood. evolution only is scrutinizing points in between.
for instance, on the molecular level, if the conditions were right, its possible in theory that radiation and other forces working with a specific DNA code could have activated a previously inactive part of the DNA code, and prompt coding. you could argue, the initial DNA would be the start, but since the product could be so drastically different from the activation, it could be a whole new species,with not much in common with the initial DNA, including the inability to reproduce with the previous DNA form.
there's a new theory.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
quote:for instance, on the molecular level, if the conditions were right, its possible in theory that radiation and other forces working with a specific DNA code could have activated a previously inactive part of the DNA code, and prompt coding. you could argue, the initial DNA would be the start, but since the product could be so drastically different from the activation, it could be a whole new species,with not much in common with the initial DNA, including the inability to reproduce with the previous DNA form.
there's a new theory.
That's not a theory, that's a guess.
"Theory" is well-defined in science, even if laymen are unaware of that definition.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
quote:Following the demise of the Soviet Union, the project has run into serious financial problems. In 1996 there were 700 tame foxes, but in 1998, without enough funds for food and salaries, they had to cut the number to 100. Most of their expenses are covered by selling them as pets, but they remain in a difficult situation, looking for new sources of revenue from outside funding.
On November 22, 2005, the journal Current Biology published an article about the genetic differences between the two fox populations.[3] In this study, DNA microarrays were used to detect differential gene expression between tame foxes, non-tame farm-raised foxes, and wild foxes; one set was raised at the same farm as the tame foxes, and the other set was wild. 40 genes were found to differ between the tame and non-tame farm-raised foxes, although about 2,700 genes differed between the wild foxes and either set of farm-raised foxes. The authors did not analyze the functional implications of the gene expression differences they observed.
This seems to support evo-devo -- with the secondary characteristics that result from selecting for calmer response (lower adrenaline levels in each generation) results in additional traits due to the effect of the hormone during development.
This seems to apply to all domesticated animals (the secondary traits) so this effect of lower adrenaline seems pretty uniform:
Figure 2. Early in the process of domestication, Darwin noted long ago, animals often undergo similar morphological and physiological changes. Because behavior is rooted in biology, Belyaev believed that selection for behavior implied selection for physiological characteristics that would have broader effects on the animals’ development. These effects might explain patterns in the responses of various animals to domestication.
quote:Forty years into our unique lifelong experiment, we believe that Dmitry Belyaev would be pleased with its progress. By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years. Before our eyes, "the Beast" has turned into "Beauty," as the aggressive behavior of our herd's wild progenitors entirely disappeared. We have watched new morphological traits emerge, a process previously known only from archaeological evidence. Now we know that these changes can burst into a population early in domestication, triggered by the stresses of captivity, and that many of them result from changes in the timing of developmental processes. In some cases the changes in timing, such as earlier sexual maturity or retarded growth of somatic characters, resemble pedomorphosis.
Isn't this macro-evolution of traits emerging that are not in the original population?
Could not these differences also have affected humans as they became more "domesticated" by larger groups living together (or nearby in cooperation)?
I'd just like to say that this is my first post and while I haven't been in on the whole discussion thus far, I have tried to catch up on what has been discussed already.
That having been said, I don't see how this supports macro-evolution for two reasons.
One: The traits that are emerging WERE in the original population. The animals were bred specifically for their lack of agression and what came from that was a less agressive fox.
Two: While the changes in phyical appearance may lead some to think that this is macro-evolution, it unfortunately does not prove that the foxes 'evolved' into dogs. They just became less agressive foxes, but as far as I can tell, they still retained the characteristics of a fox.
The traits that are emerging WERE in the original population.
Interesting hypothesis. How would you design an experiment/observation campaign to test this?
-
...it unfortunately does not prove that the foxes 'evolved' into dogs.
Not so unfortunate since that wasn't the purpose of the experiment.
What we have learned from this experiment is that a relatively few genetic changes can result in multiple, coordinated changes in phenotype, and that selection pressures on one trait can also affect many other traits as well.
The purpose isn't to "prove" macroevolution (that's already been proven, at least in the sense that any scientific theory is ever proven), but to elucidate details and possible pathways through which evolution can proceed.
-
By the way, kudos for bringing the "domesticated fox" into EvC. I've been trying to figure out a way to bring it into the conversation ever since I discovered this little gem.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
One: The traits that are emerging WERE in the original population.
According to the articles the floppy ears, color patches, curled up tail, shorter\wider face -- are not in the original wild population.
The animals were bred specifically for their lack of agression and what came from that was a less agressive fox.
The floppy ears, color patches, curled up tail, shorter\wider face -- are not selected for, the only selection criteria was the passive behavior.
While the changes in phyical appearance may lead some to think that this is macro-evolution, it unfortunately does not prove that the foxes 'evolved' into dogs.
As noted, the purpose was not to turn foxes into dogs, just into domesticated foxes, and nothing is ever proven in science. The other changes that occurred to the foxes on the way to becoming a domesticated breed are new traits for the species that evolved over a number of generations -- this is evolution by normal biological definitions -- and they demonstrate divergence from the parent population (wild foxes) by acquiring traits not in the parent population: this is what occurs in macro-evolution by normal biological definitions.
Of course the real issue is "when does change become sufficient to be "macro"evolution and how does it occur?" Perhaps you'd like to help me out on this definition on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? So far I haven't gotten a usable definition from a creationist.
One: The traits that are emerging WERE in the original population. The animals were bred specifically for their lack of agression and what came from that was a less agressive fox.
Hey guess what? Looks like you cant comprehend very much in terms of science, and/or biology.
The genetic and chemical processes which create the elements of the brain which cause aggression (wait....let that sink in...comprehend...NOW continue) change, from one generation of foxes to future generations, with time. Some of these changes in the chemical mechanisms for causing aggressiveness, as an offset, caused completely other, unrelated traits of the fox(i.e. it's fur color) to change from one generation to the subsequent generations.
So, when one part of a genome is pressured because of selection, there are actually many changes to the genome which can occur. Evolution can happen at a quick rate, therefore. Usually natural selection changes much more than only what is under selective pressure.
Do you understand?
Edited by TheNaturalist, : hey by the way you are not created
First I'd like to say that I don't know how to quote people on this site so bare with me...maybe someone can help.
But to Ichthus...
You are making the point as if chimps evolved into humans when evolutionary biology has never said that, the close percentage is due to the common ancestry and not because we are a direct descendanct of chimps.
I just have one question...what right do people have to create, change, and manipulate as though they are gods? There is only one God, and he created all of us, humans and animals. With regards to the the silver fox experiment, who are we to decide that we want to create a new species or even subspecies? That is for God to decide; anything else is blasphemy.
Your basic premise is not sound because it simply in not in harmony with what the Bible does say. "Creationism" is a straw man argument; it seems to be what is always assumed and is easily "knocked over" as being not in harmony with either the age of the earth, or of the universe. I looked in one creationism textbook and under the question about why the radioactive dating of the earth yeilds such a large age the book says "God created it old." Yes, that is silly.
The fact is the Bible does not say either how old the earth or universe is, since the first day started with Genesis 1:3, and the way that the Hebrew word for "day" is used throughout the Bible it can mean any length of time marked by a particular event. Also when it says "according to their Kind" the word is "Genus" but it means far more than the modern ugeage of the word. It is more like family. If you would like to see my evidence here is the link to a study I did on the subject:
™ Version 4.2
