Natural selection and artificial selection generally act upon the same class of phenomena (mutations) to achieve an effect, but when people talk about artificial selection, they are very often talking about projects that take place over the course of a few human generations at most, whereas evolution, by means of mutation and natural selection, is evidenced to have happened over the course of significantly greater timescales.
Because of this, declaring that the different breeds of dog are still all dogs, or the different varieties of apples are not bananas is a flawed argument.
To expand upon Mangetout’s post, artificial selection differs from natural selection in that the former is specifically executed by us, as determined by our whims, for our own uses. Often, it comes in the form of selection for specific desired traits, and breeding for those traits preferentially above others. Natural selection does not select for specific traits so much as it selects for specific organisms, which then pass on their entire suite of traits on the sole basis that they have survived, and found a mate.
We breed dogs, for example, for specific purposes – purposes which suit us, not the dogs. Natural selection operates by benefiting the organism itself.
Both forms act upon the natural variation of a species, but artificial selection is directed, with an end result in mind.
First time I heard that precious little theory was today and I “was” as mainstream as you could get. But I did enjoy the cite. You wouldn’t be perpetuating one of those ignorant bigoted rumors, now would you?
Before answering thanks again for pointing out my ignorance or obtuseness. I liked that you capitalised Tree of Life.
Granted.
I agree that fossils seem to show ( I think they DO show, but you said science can’t prove anything) common descent and evolution. The question is “what form of evolution” and to what extend and how plastic can species get.
May I repeat once again that:
a) As far I know, they universe is about 15 000 million years old.
b) The similarities between species show some sort of common descent.
c) There was a time when there were species that no longer exist.
d) Some species that existed in the past have changed and become another species.
e) Mutations play a role in these changes
f) I don’t believe in Darwinian evolution as it is stated. I don’t think that Natural Selection can get species changing that far (beaks are OK, more heart chambers NO).
g) I personally believe that many Darwinians are “closet” Lamarckians (sp?)
h) God created everything and whatever happened in evoultion or whatnot was His choice.
i) I’m inclined, at this time, to believe in Intelligent Design, but I’m not married to it.
On the question of whether fossils “prove” evolution:
The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it makes predictions that can be tested. For instance, Darwin noticed that chimps were our closest living relatives, and theorized that humans and chimps both evolved from some chimp-like species. (Note: not that humans evolved from chimps.)
This idea leads to definite predictions. Keep in mind that when Darwin wrote, no ancient hominid fossils had been found. His theory predicted, for instance, that there were species of human-like nature having brain size intermediate between the brain of chimps and that of humans. IIRC, chimps have about a pint of brains, while humans have about one and a half quarts. That’s a huge difference: a factor of three. Today we can say that this prediction is resoundingly confirmed. Australopithecines have chimp-sized brains, but (probably) walked upright. Homo habilis had a larger brain than Australopithecus and lived later in time. Homo ergaster lived still later and had a still larger brain. Homo erectus was even later and had a brain almost within the normal range for humans.
So that’s at least one solid prediction of evolution that’s been solidly confirmed in the 150 years since Darwin.
Nice explanation, except that it still doesn’t describe a big enough difference between the two ideas. If I specifically breed two dogs together, because I want to combine the traits in each, isn’t this the selection of individual dogs (i.e., specific organisms)?
The dogs within my care that have the traits I want will breed and pass on those genes, while the dogs that don’t have those traits will not breed. And, depending on what kind of mean Ogre I am, they may not even live past puppyhood.
Thus, individual dogs that have specific favorable traits will survive and find a mate.
Ok, so you’re saying that “natural” applies only when applied wholly within the confines of the species.
So, a peacock evolving brighter colors to better attract a mate is natural selection.
But, a flower that develops brighter colors to better attract bees for pollination should be considered artificial selection, since the bees are obviously choosing which flowers get pollinated more often.
See, to me, it really doesn’t matter whether the influence to change is internal or external. In either case, the organisms with the appropriate traits will survive and those without won’t.
Actually, the difference is that artificial selection has a desired endpoint. I’m deliberately breeding dogs for better obedience, or a particular shade and sheen of fur, or for their vigilance as watchdogs.
Natural selection has no desired endpoint, regardless of whether it’s bees doing the selecting for flowers or drought doing the selecting for xerosurvival. The bees aren’t saying, “Hey! If I fertilize this neon yellow daisy with the pollen from this butter-yellow daisy, then we can get a nice schoolbus yellow daisy!”
In other words, in artificial selection, the endpoint drives the process. In natural selection, the process drives itself.
I tend to agree with you. When confronted with YECism, I find myself with two options, neither of which are very appealing to me:
(a) completely disregard all scientific evidence and maintain that palentology, most aspects of astronomy, geology etc. are fraudulent,
(b) Accept that the universe is ~6000 years old and maintain that God created the universe with the appearence of age.
I don’t like (a) at all and (b) lends to itself the legitimacy of Last Thursdayism. However, I’m more willing to accept (b) than (a). I’m even more willing to go with OECism (and the possibility of evolution [excluding humans, as mentioned above]).
Well, to a certain extent, yes. For example, I believe in the Exodus from Egypt and the Divine Revelation at Sinai. No matter how hard someone will tell me that there is no external evidence for either event, nonetheless I believe. I believe in God, even though I also believe that it is impossible to empirically prove His existence. Since I believe that God exists, and I believe that He gave us the Torah, and that what is stated therein is true; that is what I believe in. To the extent that it can be rationally interpreted and explained within scientific reasoning, I’m willing to accept. Therefore, I’m willing to accept to accept the idea that animals evolved from other animals over the course of millions of years. But then again, I’m also willing to accept the argument that the animals were created as they currently are. Which one is fact? I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know. To be honest, the main point for me is that God created the world. How it happened and the exact mechanism by which we arrived at the point where we are today is certainly a fascenating argument and a great debate; but ultimately, does not change my life all that much one way or the other. I love to read about it and am willing to listen to arguments on all sides of the aisle. But when it comes down to something that outright contradicts the Torah and Jewish tradition, then I have to conclude that either the scientific evidence is wrong or being misunderstood - and leave it for future generations to reconcile.
As for FriendofRob? Good question. I certainly don’t deny the existence of chimps. I’m even willing to consider the existence of the other species mentioned (in an OEC context, of course). But that does not prove that modern-day humans descended from the chain of creatures that he mentioned. It simply suggests that (a) they existed and (b) they may be related to each other. And I’ll even go a bit further and say that had God not said (which is what I believe) that He created man, I’d probably even go to the last step and conclude that man came from the same ancestors as chimps. But since I have beliefs to the contrary, I don’t believe that.
I know that sounds remarkably close-minded (which is something that I’m normally not), but so be it. Those are my beliefs.
So then, it seems as if this is just a matter of semantics. It’s the exact same process, whether the changes are goal-driven or randomly driven. Or whether it’s a breeder deciding life or death or a drought.
I’m 99% with Zev’s beliefs, specially in the sense that I don’t lose much sleep over dinosaurs, that God created everything, that Exodus DID happen and Moses DID receive tabltes form God at Horeb and that any discrepancy between science and religion is apparent because (since God is the author of all truth) eventually those who seek truth will find it and science will point to God in the end.
The 1% is mostly due to the fact that I’m Catholic and he’s Jewish.
I’d have to say he gets 100%, IMHO. He’s talking about scripture that both religions consider correct. As far as our overall doctrinal differences, we think he’s missing some information (although I’m not sure he is) and he thinks we made some information up. The latter sounds worse, somehow; but we’ll eventually get the answer to that “mystery” and clear up that other 1%. My vote is for the truth, but I so do hate being wrong.
Aren’t we Cro-Magnon?? If yes, then no to your question.
**
Well, I suppose that if God told me something personally, I’d accept it as proof. Of course, that leads to the question of proof of the Divine Revelation at Sinai…
I never presented them as anything but my own personal opinions. I’m not going to have the hubris to stand here and tell you “You’e got to believe it happened the way I said it did!” I can only give you my beliefs based on my religious upbringing, teachings and my reading (and understanding) of scientific fact.
