Did Darwin plagiarize the Theory of Evolution?

[phank]

12. Breeding of animals (like dogs) gives us clues as to how evolution works, although in breeding the selection process is not natural. Nevertheless, breeding does change the frequency of alleles in a population, the text book definition of evolution.

From OUR perspective, dog breeding is not "natural". From the dog's perspective, it's as natural as any other environmental constraint.

[Nathan Poe]

From OUR perspective, dog breeding is not "natural". From the dog's perspective, it's as natural as any other environmental constraint.

It's artificial, not natural selection, in that we are guiding the traits being bred are not for survival in nature, but for our pleasure.

You can breed a purebred chihuahua, but let's face it -- where, outside of some rich girl's handbag, is such an animal "fit" to survive?

[phank]

It's artificial, not natural selection, in that we are guiding the traits being bred are not for survival in nature, but for our pleasure.

You can breed a purebred chihuahua, but let's face it -- where, outside of some rich girl's handbag, is such an animal "fit" to survive?

Yes, of course it is. WE are the environment.

I think what I wrote is perfectly clear. It simply doesn't matter to the dogs what aspect of its environment is causing some individuals to breed more successfully than others. So long as there are dog breeders doing the selection, THEY are the "nature" within which the dogs survive.

And this is no more artificial than any other aspect of environment, as far as the dog is concerned. You could take the ancestral wolf, plunk it down in an environment where it could not survive, and claim that environment must be "artificial", but it's just a constellation of environmental constraints.

Or I suppose you could argue that because "natural" environments over time change in critical ways (temperature, elevation, food supplies, etc.) that ALL environments are "artificial". But I don't see how that argument gains you much.

[magellan004]

2. Breeding of animals (like dogs) gives us clues as to how evolution works ... breeding does change the frequency of alleles in a population, the text book definition of evolution.

So does non-breeding. Any birth changes the frequency of alles so any birth gives us 'A clue as to how evolution works'.


Definition of evolution - having children.

Magellan

[phank]

So does non-breeding. Any birth changes the frequency of alles so any birth gives us 'A clue as to how evolution works'.


Definition of evolution - having children.

Magellan

You almost have it. Reproducing is essential to evolution. But so are restrictions on reproducing. One of the fundamental elements of selection is that SELECTION happens! Which means, not all offspring survive to reproduce. And if offspring with SOME characteristics tend to survive and reproduce more, THOSE characteristics tend to spread through the reproducing population.

What produces evolution is differential breeding success. Of course, breeding is required.

You must be careful to notice that RUNNING the race is not quite the same thing as WINNING the race. Running is required, but not sufficient.

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, of course it is. WE are the environment.

I think what I wrote is perfectly clear. It simply doesn't matter to the dogs what aspect of its environment is causing some individuals to breed more successfully than others. So long as there are dog breeders doing the selection, THEY are the "nature" within which the dogs survive.

And this is no more artificial than any other aspect of environment, as far as the dog is concerned. You could take the ancestral wolf, plunk it down in an environment where it could not survive, and claim that environment must be "artificial", but it's just a constellation of environmental constraints.

Or I suppose you could argue that because "natural" environments over time change in critical ways (temperature, elevation, food supplies, etc.) that ALL environments are "artificial". But I don't see how that argument gains you much.

Depends if the animals are breeding to survive, or being bred for aesthetic purposes.

[phank]

Depends if the animals are breeding to survive, or being bred for aesthetic purposes.

No, you missed the point completely. The animals that survived human breeding programs are those that met human breeding goals. And THOSE survived. And probably individuals who would have survived better in the wilds of Wyoming did NOT survive. WE humans ARE the environment, not the wilds of Wyoming.

And this might be important, even within the scope of your myopia, considering how thoroughly humans are trashing every environment on earth. The survivors of countless species are those who best adapt to the changes humans make.

[Nathan Poe]

No, you missed the point completely. The animals that survived human breeding programs are those that met human breeding goals. And THOSE survived.

Except they all survive -- I've never heard of humans specifically killing dogs because they weren't purebreeds -- mutts get good homes too; better ones, sometimes, since they tend to be healthier than the purebreeds.

And probably individuals who would have survived better in the wilds of Wyoming did NOT survive. WE humans ARE the environment, not the wilds of Wyoming.

Perhaps -- so how many mutts have been killed by breeders?

And this might be important, even within the scope of your myopia, considering how thoroughly humans are trashing every environment on earth. The survivors of countless species are those who best adapt to the changes humans make.

Indeed -- so the point is: are these species' breeding being influenced by their environment (which is indirectedly affected by humans), or is it specifically controlled by humans with no regard to the environment outside a dog show?

[phank]

Except they all survive -- I've never heard of humans specifically killing dogs because they weren't purebreeds -- mutts get good homes too; better ones, sometimes, since they tend to be healthier than the purebreeds.

And what you've never heard of, doesn't exist? But anyway, dog breeders don't necessarily kill the dogs, but neither do they BREED the dogs. They select those dogs who best exemplify the traits they're looking for, and breed them together. The rest simply do not produce offspring.

Perhaps -- so how many mutts have been killed by breeders?

There really IS a difference between killing a dog, and simply not providing a dog with a mate. All of my pets have been neutered. None have been killed. Do you see the difference?

Indeed -- so the point is: are these species' breeding being influenced by their environment (which is indirectedly affected by humans), or is it specifically controlled by humans with no regard to the environment outside a dog show?

The environment is what a dog lives in, and it doesn't matter to the dog whether it's a desert, a forest, or a kennel. If dogs are bred in kennels for display in dog shows, then that is the selection environment for those dogs.

[Nathan Poe]

And what you've never heard of, doesn't exist?

So does it?

But anyway, dog breeders don't necessarily kill the dogs, but neither do they BREED the dogs. They select those dogs who best exemplify the traits they're looking for, and breed them together. The rest simply do not produce offspring.

Or... those dogs get sold to people who are not looking for purebreeds, people who raise them like regular dogs. One day they take their dogs to the park, two dogs meet... bomp chicka wow wow...

You DO realize that animals can (and often do) breed without professional help, right?

There really IS a difference between killing a dog, and simply not providing a dog with a mate. All of my pets have been neutered. None have been killed. Do you see the difference?

Do YOU see the difference between your pets and the dog population in general?

The environment is what a dog lives in, and it doesn't matter to the dog whether it's a desert, a forest, or a kennel. If dogs are bred in kennels for display in dog shows, then that is the selection environment for those dogs.

And it's referred to as artificial selection in order to differentiate it from natural selection -- which is essentially random.

Artificial selection (what happens in the kennel) is always done with a very specific goal in mind -- natural selection is more of a "whatever works" process.

[phank]

So does it?

So I've heard. I'm not a dog breeder, though.

Or... those dogs get sold to people who are not looking for purebreeds, people who raise them like regular dogs. One day they take their dogs to the park, two dogs meet... bomp chicka wow wow...

You DO realize that animals can (and often do) breed without professional help, right?

I imagine that happens often enough as well. Are you saying that two people who breed their dogs in the park are somehow more "natural" than one person who breeds his dogs in a kennel?

Do YOU see the difference between your pets and the dog population in general?

There's no such thing as "in general". Two dogs breed together or they do not. Their circumstances either present them with the opportunity to do so, or they do not. Given appropriate circumstances, dogs will mate. You are confusing human intentions with dog behavior.

(And as a footnote, there are those who firmly believe that Divine Guidance is somehow determining which humans get to mate with which ones, in ways as incomprehensible to us as our intentions are incomprehensible to the dogs. We MIGHT be part of a Divine breeding program!)

And it's referred to as artificial selection in order to differentiate it from natural selection -- which is essentially random.

From a human point of view, I agree. But from the dog's view, human intentions are simply outside their grasp.

Artificial selection (what happens in the kennel) is always done with a very specific goal in mind -- natural selection is more of a "whatever works" process.

No, you simply do not understand. Selection is selection. Doesn't matter if it's done by purposeful humans directly, or by an indifferent but nonetheless controlling environment indirectly. Selection is selection.

(And when I think of the unlikely chain of improbable circumstances that results in ANY two people meeting and mating, I wonder if we ARE part of some breeding program invisible to us.)

[magellan004]

You almost have it. Reproducing is essential to evolution. But so are restrictions on reproducing. One of the fundamental elements of selection is that SELECTION happens! Which means, not all offspring survive to reproduce. And if offspring with SOME characteristics tend to survive and reproduce more, THOSE characteristics tend to spread through the reproducing population.

What produces evolution is differential breeding success. Of course, breeding is required.

You must be careful to notice that RUNNING the race is not quite the same thing as WINNING the race. Running is required, but not sufficient.

Why is there always a race?
This is one of the ways evolutionists have of accounting for discrepancies in the actual world versus the theorised world. - sort of like Economics = The allocation of scarce resources. But there is abundance everywhere - depending on your mindset.

There is not always a race for food , for example. Two different bugs on a bush can live happily together. A nest of ants can live happily together. An ant does not compete with its fellow ants.
Certainly there can be times of stress - floods, drought and so on. But I think the work-around - 'There is ALWAYS something wrong' is wrong.

IF two bugs were born in a family - one green, one brown, there is no bird out there waiting to get the green bug.

Natural selection is an ethos of extinction, not success.

Magellan

[Nathan Poe]

From a human point of view, I agree. But from the dog's view, human intentions are simply outside their grasp.

Which is why WE differentiate between artificial and natural selection, and the dogs do not. We, at least, know the difference.

No, you simply do not understand. Selection is selection. Doesn't matter if it's done by purposeful humans directly, or by an indifferent but nonetheless controlling environment indirectly. Selection is selection.

So, all those people who differentiate between natural and artificial selection don't understand, and you're the only one who does?

[Nathan Poe]

There is not always a race for food , for example. Two different bugs on a bush can live happily together. A nest of ants can live happily together. An ant does not compete with its fellow ants.
Certainly there can be times of stress - floods, drought and so on. But I think the work-around - 'There is ALWAYS something wrong' is wrong.

There's not always something wrong -- but natural selection occurs when something does go wrong.

IF two bugs were born in a family - one green, one brown, there is no bird out there waiting to get the green bug.

Not until autumn, when the green leaves turn brown, and that green bug starts to stick out like a sore thumb on the branches.

Natural selection is an ethos of extinction, not success.

Not going extinct is a pretty good indication of success.

[USIncognito]

Hey Nathan. Good to see you posting here. Considering the level of debate on the part of Creationists, TWeb is better than virtually every other forum with a Crevo section. Unfortunately, clownshoes is the resident version of AVVet.