Animal Breeding and evolution

[mindlight]

Over a couple of centuries dog breeders have effectively turned dogs who were more like wolves into poodles. This has been a result of guided selective breeding programmes.

Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" clearly thinks this is a proof that evolution by natural selection could also produce remarkable changes in a period of millions years without intelligent guidance.

But it strikes me that this example only proves that Intelligent design can produce guided changes over time in a more effective and timely way than the mechanism of natural selection, survival of the fittest et al could ever hope to achieve.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Over a couple of centuries dog breeders have effectively turned dogs who were more like wolves into poodles. This has been a result of guided selective breeding programmes.

Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" clearly thinks this is a proof that evolution by natural selection could also produce remarkable changes in a period of millions years without intelligent guidance.

But it strikes me that this example only proves that Intelligent design can produce guided changes over time in a more effective and timely way than the mechanism of natural selection, survival of the fittest et al could ever hope to achieve.

Natural selection - artificial selection comparison fail.

 

[Cabal]

As usual, this is related to the same question creationists can never / will never answer:

If we're not supposed to be descended from apes, if nothing descended from anything else, then why in the world do some species look and function in near-identical ways?

This just gets worse when you throw some anthropomorphised "intelligent designer" into the mix; worse still when you make the same claim of an all-powerful deity.

 

[mindlight]

As usual, this is related to the same question creationists can never / will never answer:

If we're not supposed to be descended from apes, if nothing descended from anything else, then why in the world do some species look and function in near-identical ways?

This just gets worse when you throw some anthropomorphised "intelligent designer" into the mix; worse still when you make the same claim of an all-powerful deity.

Because many behaviours are linked to what works in an environment. Since many similar species share common challenges , common solutions to those challenges are hardly a proof of anything except perhaps as blue prints of how to survive and thrive.

 

[sbvera13]

If you can document a biological process that occurs during artificial selection, that does not or can not also function in natural selection, then your argument might work.

So far however, there is no such process we have discovered.

 

[sbvera13]

Because many behaviours are linked to what works in an environment. Since many similar species share common challenges , common solutions to those challenges are hardly a proof of anything except perhaps as blue prints of how to survive and thrive.

By this logic, bats and birds should have identical wings. Can you explain why they are different in spite of being a solution to a common challenge?

 

[MoonLancer]

Over a couple of centuries dog breeders have effectively turned dogs who were more like wolves into poodles. This has been a result of guided selective breeding programmes.

Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" clearly thinks this is a proof that evolution by natural selection could also produce remarkable changes in a period of millions years without intelligent guidance.

But it strikes me that this example only proves that Intelligent design can produce guided changes over time in a more effective and timely way than the mechanism of natural selection, survival of the fittest et al could ever hope to achieve.

I will say that possibly artificial selection can be faster. but natural selection is brutal and tends to produce more self sufficient creatures that have more useful adaptations or traits.

Artificial selection only produces traits that humans want in the animal while natural selection produces traits to help that animal stay alive

 

[Split Rock]

Over a couple of centuries dog breeders have effectively turned dogs who were more like wolves into poodles. This has been a result of guided selective breeding programmes.

Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" clearly thinks this is a proof that evolution by natural selection could also produce remarkable changes in a period of millions years without intelligent guidance.

But it strikes me that this example only proves that Intelligent design can produce guided changes over time in a more effective and timely way than the mechanism of natural selection, survival of the fittest et al could ever hope to achieve.

I am reading Dawkin's book right now. Like Darwin did in On the Origins of Species, he certainly does use Artificial Selection (ie breeding) to start off his argument for evolution. How far did you get? He goes from Artifical Selection into Sexual Selection and then Natural Selection and shows how whether the guiding hand is intelligent (like humans) or unintelligent (like nature) that the result is the same. While I agree that artificial selection is faster, I don't see how this is an argument against natural selection.

 

[mindlight]

If you can document a biological process that occurs during artificial selection, that does not or can not also function in natural selection, then your argument might work.

So far however, there is no such process we have discovered.

The processes are the same but they are controlled and forced in the artificial example. So if reproduction can only occur with certain mates for example.

So the difference is not one of process its one of probability and in this case probability for artificial slection rests on the breeders choice. Probability in nature rests on the time span allocated to the achievement of an outcome and the conviction that certain combinations best conduicive to survival must eventually occur. Natural selection is thus a lot less reliable and indeed it can fail.

 

[Split Rock]

Natural selection - artificial selection comparison fail.

You will have to tell that to Darwin and Dawkins both.... they would both disagree.

 

[Cabal]

Because many behaviours are linked to what works in an environment.

In other words, God is bound by the environment he created if he can only find one solution, therefore he is not omnipotent.

It's not so much the behaviour I'm talking about, it's the fact that these things are close to identical on practically every level. God can surely inject a bit more variety than what there already is.

Since many similar species share common challenges , common solutions to those challenges are hardly a proof of anything except perhaps as blue prints of how to survive and thrive.

This only applies to things that function.

Still doesn't explain the common errors, like why we should have the same defective genes as chimpanzees, ERVs, etc.

 

[mindlight]

I am reading Dawkin's book right now. Like Darwin did in On the Origins of Species, he certainly does use Artificial Selection (ie breeding) to start off his argument for evolution. How far did you get? He goes from Artifical Selection into Sexual Selection and then Natural Selection and shows how whether the guiding hand is intelligent (like humans) or unintelligent (like nature) that the result is the same. While I agree that artificial selection is faster, I don't see how this is an argument against natural selection.

I have not read his argument on this yet - thats the next chapter- which I will read after this post. But from what you write I must admit I think I disagree right now. The result must be far less probable in an unguided solution unless you allocate a lot more time to the process and indeed the best solution from a survival point of view may never be achieved.

 

[Split Rock]

The processes are the same but they are controlled and forced in the artificial example. So if reproduction can only occur with certain mates for example.

So the difference is not one of process its one of probability and in this case probability for artificial slection rests on the breeders choice. Probability in nature rests on the time span allocated to the achievement of an outcome and the conviction that certain combinations best conduicive to survival must eventually occur. Natural selection is thus a lot less reliable and indeed it can fail.

Natural selection is indeed based on probability. An indivdual that is poorly adapted to a new envirnoment may survive and reproduce. According to probability, however, his chances are less than a better adapted indvidual. What do you mean when you say therefore that N.S. can "fail?" If you mean that species can become extinct before they can adapt, then I would point out that the fossil record (and historical record) is riddled with extinct species. The vast majority of species that have lived on earth are now extinct. How does this argue against N.S.?

 

[Cabal]

The processes are the same but they are controlled and forced in the artificial example. So if reproduction can only occur with certain mates for example.

Except there is no evidence the outcome of our evolution has been shaped.

So the difference is not one of process its one of probability and in this case probability for artificial slection rests on the breeders choice. Probability in nature rests on the time span allocated to the achievement of an outcome and the conviction that certain combinations best conduicive to survival must eventually occur. Natural selection is thus a lot less reliable and indeed it can fail.

As has been said, the two processes are indistinguishable in terms of time.

One could almost make the counterargument, if God is omnipotent, what took him so long? (Well, a few billion years would be as arbitrary as 6 days, but I'm not too hung up on the final answer, unlike some people....)

Also, you have given no reason as to why natural selection COULDN'T have done what people claim it has done - and even then, that wouldn't prove your point about artificial selection right by default.

 

[Cabal]

Why do I have the sinking feeling that this is going to turn into a fine-tuning style argument....

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The processes are the same but they are controlled and forced in the artificial example. So if reproduction can only occur with certain mates for example.

The only difference between natural and artificial selection is the origin of the selection pressure. Thus, artificial selection is a valid way to show how natural evolution works.

So the difference is not one of process its one of probability and in this case probability for artificial slection rests on the breeders choice. Probability in nature rests on the time span allocated to the achievement of an outcome and the conviction that certain combinations best conduicive to survival must eventually occur. Natural selection is thus a lot less reliable and indeed it can fail.

Natural selection can't fail, since it doesn't have goals. Artificial selection is quicker than natural selection because human-induced selection pressures are often stronger than those found in nature. But that's just a minor, and frankly irrelevant, detail.

 

[laconicstudent]

Why do I have the sinking feeling that this is going to turn into a fine-tuning style argument....

I think the picture in Cabal's sig is applicable to this thread. The OP is ironically a fairly good argument in FAVOR of evolution.

 

[sfs]

But from what you write I must admit I think I disagree right now. The result must be far less probable in an unguided solution unless you allocate a lot more time to the process and indeed the best solution from a survival point of view may never be achieved.

Most of what you say is true, but I don't see how that leads to your conclusion. Yes, natural selection is usually (although not always) much slower than artificial selection, and less likely to produce any particular phenotypic change. (I don't know how to evaluate your last statement, since the best solution from a survival point of view is not usually the goal of artificial selection, and is unlikely to be achieved for either natural or artificial selection, at least for anything larger than a bacterium.)

The question you should be asking, however, is not whether natural selection is as fast as artificial selection, but whether it is fast enough to explain the changes that have occurred over the history of life. This is an empirical question, so there's really not a lot of point in just guessing at the answer. One way of approaching the question is to study natural selection in the wild, either in natural experiments using populations that are experiencing a new environment, or in planned experiments in which some aspect of the environment is changed in a way that mimics a natural process, like the introduction of a new predator. Then you can see just how fast a species changes visibly when exposed to a new selective pressure. The answer is, "Very fast" -- many orders of magnitude faster than the average rate of change of fossil species, and even orders of magnitude faster than the rate of change during the bursts of evolution known as adaptive radiations.

Given the actual time available for natural selection to have acted, which is very large, and the rate at which natural selection can be observed changing species, natural selection seems to be more than adequate as an explanation for the history of life.

 

[Sanguis]

Over a couple of centuries dog breeders have effectively turned dogs who were more like wolves into poodles. This has been a result of guided selective breeding programmes.

Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" clearly thinks this is a proof that evolution by natural selection could also produce remarkable changes in a period of millions years without intelligent guidance.

But it strikes me that this example only proves that Intelligent design can produce guided changes over time in a more effective and timely way than the mechanism of natural selection, survival of the fittest et al could ever hope to achieve.

Poodles aren't a result of just natural selection, though.

Artificial selection has played a huge part in it. Poodles, for whatever reason I can't quite fathom (I'm a cat person.), are preferable to people who wanted dogs more like poodles, than wolves. So, over time, and through artificially selecting which dog breeds with which dog, we end up with poodles. Unfortunately. (They're so irritating! >_<)

 

[Thistlethorn]

You will have to tell that to Darwin and Dawkins both.... they would both disagree.

I doubt it, but I suppose you misunderstood me. One cannot make a credible argument where claiming that artificial selection requires intelligent input, therefore natural selection requires the same.