Evolution And The Breeding Of Dogs

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically discredit the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts?

[Vaard]

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically put paid to the theory that natural selection is a myth?

put paid?

dont understand the phrase.......

[Vaard]

but yeah, the discovery channel, history channel and natgoe have all had shows about the evoklution and breeding of dogs........


and not to derail, but the show on cats stated that the cat was the only animal bred by man that has not become domesticated......

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

put paid?

dont understand the phrase.......

Discredit it.

I shall edit the OP to clarify.

[Late2TheParty]

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically put paid to the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Why? What aspect?

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Why? What aspect?

Because dogs have evolved quite provably through natural selection.

[Late2TheParty]

and not to derail, but the show on cats stated that the cat was the only animal bred by man that has not become domesticated......

Maybe they're really just secretly breeding us humans as to get the best, most docile and accomodating "owner" possible;)

[EnchantedFrog]

My dog appears to have been created in a laboratory by a demented scientist who wanted to see if he could create a lifeform that had no purpose other than eating, sleeping, and barking.

[Late2TheParty]

Because dogs have evolved quite provably through natural selection.

Wait, give me the definition of natural selection you're going by for a reference point and prevent misunderstandings.

[Ninjacorpse]

Maybe they're really just secretly breeding us humans as to get the best, most docile and accomodating "owner" possible;)

The government or house cats?

[Ninjacorpse]

My dog appears to have been created in a laboratory by a demented scientist who wanted to see if he could create a lifeform that had no purpose other than eating, sleeping, and barking.

I am sure he fertilizes your lawn for you as well.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Wait, give me the definition of natural selection you're going by for a reference point and prevent misunderstandings.

I think I made it abundantly clear in the OP. Please tell me what you are unsure about.

[Ninjacorpse]

Because dogs have evolved quite provably through natural selection.

How is it natural if man had a hand in it?

[Buffalo]

Because dogs have evolved quite provably through natural selection.
It's actually directed selection, not natural. Gregor Mendel applied it to plants (peas) to demonstrate laws of inheritance. And it does provide a glimpse into why and how organisms change over time. And yes, breeding is, to me, a piece of evidence verifying evolutionary principles. Traits that are more adaptive wil be passed on. Just in this case, the adaptability is actually what the breeder wants, rather than what allows the organism to survive and reproduce in the environment.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

How is it natural if man had a hand in it?

Mea culpa, directed selection.

[Vaard]

How is it natural if man had a hand in it?

well, it is not natural selection since it was not dertemined naturally as a best reaction to environment.....

but it does prove the point that animals can be changed from their original forms into something else.......

however, this does not address the complaints against evolution since when all is said and done, they are still dogs and part of the canine family........

[Buffalo]

well, it is not natural selection since it was not dertemined naturally as a best reaction to environment.....

but it does prove the point that animals can be changed from their original forms into something else.......

however, this does not address the complaints against evolution since when all is said and done, they are still dogs and part of the canine family........
That's one of the biggest hangups for the anti evo crowd. You can't observe changes on that scale with your eyes in an actual population. Then they discredit the application of the fossil record. Oh well.

[Ninjacorpse]

Mea culpa, directed selection.

Intelligent design? lol

[Mike88]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically discredit the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts?

Ok time to prove the incompleteness of the theory of evolution.

Did the first life form to appear in the universe come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve or did evolution come about later?

If you answer that the first life form did come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve then your argument strongly supports Intelligent Design. In fact, there can not be any other conclusion logically possible.

If you answer that the ability to evolve was gained later then you are arguing nonsense. The ability to evolve would either be there at the beginning or be completely absent. Evolving the ability to evolve makes no logical sense and cannot be supported by any solid science.

All that the pro Darwinian can argue at this point is "random cosmic accident" which requires every bit as much faith in an unprovable as "because god made it that way."

This destroys the "there is no god or intelligent design because of Darwin's theory" logic totally and utterly, and we haven't even crossed over into the many holes in Darwin's theory in the fossil records. If Evolution were as strong a theory as Quantum Field Theory then it would have predicted the exact biological features of then unknown organisms soon to be discovered the way QFT predicted the exact features of then unknown sub atomic quanta.

In terms of pure science, Darwin's theory is a joke.

[ThrowCop]

It doesn't really make a case for natural selection but it certainly shows that evolution, albeit directed evolution is not only possible, it is remarkably diverse in its outcomes.

[Mike88]

That's one of the biggest hangups for the anti evo crowd. You can't observe changes on that scale with your eyes in an actual population. Then they discredit the application of the fossil record. Oh well.

The fossil record destroys Darwin's theory by deomonstrating its glaring incompleteness. There are far too many gaps to logically confirm Darwin's theory. At best, he is only partially correct.

[Socrates]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically discredit the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts?

Depends on how you define the theory of natural selection.

Obviously natural selection (or unnatural selection in the case of dogs) works on some level. Under certain conditions a species' characteristics can change enormously over time, but from pocket chihuahuas to great danes, they're still all dogs. The different dog breeds aren't really different species. They're probably more analogous to what we call "race" in humans. A Masai tribesman and an Inuit look quite different from one another and have adapted to different environments, but they are still both homo sapien.

I think to experimentally dispell the issue some people have with natural selection would require you to breed dogs selectively until you came up with something that was no longer canine, but something entirely new.

[Late2TheParty]

Did the first life form to appear in the universe come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve or did evolution come about later?
Evolution isn't an ability so much as a process.

[Vaard]

That's one of the biggest hangups for the anti evo crowd. You can't observe changes on that scale with your eyes in an actual population. Then they discredit the application of the fossil record. Oh well.

it does however destroy the religious concept that god created all animals as is........

[CrusaderFrank]

The Government has been breeding docile, stupid and useless people called "Democratic Voters" for 70 years now.

[Buffalo]

Ok time to prove the incompleteness of the theory of evolution.

Did the first life form to appear in the universe come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve or did evolution come about later?

If you answer that the first life form did come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve then your argument strongly supports Intelligent Design. In fact, there can be not other conclusion logically possible.

If you answer that the ability to evolve was gained later then you are arguing nonsense. The ability to evolve would either be there at the beginning or be completely absent. Evolving the ability to evolve makes no logical sense and cannot be supported by any solid science.

All that the pro Darwinian can argue at this point is "random cosmic accident" which requires every bit as much faith in an unprovable as "because god made it that way."

This destroys the "there is no god or intelligent design because of Darwin's theory" logic totally and utterly, and we haven't even crossed over into the may holes in Darwin's theory in the fossil records. If Evolution were as strong a theory as Quantum Field Theory then it would have predicted the exact biological features of then unknown organisms soon to be discovered the way QFT predicted the exact features of then unknown sub atomic quanta.

In terms of pure science, Darwin's theory is a joke.
Darwinism and creationism are not opposites, although you probably know this. In fact, one can subscribe to the modern theory of evolution and still believe in a creator or a higher power.

[Buffalo]

The fossil record destroys Darwin's theory by deomonstrating its glaring incompleteness. There are far too many gaps to logically confirm Darwin's theory. At best, he is only partially correct.
My degree in biology and minor in anthropology has exposed me to a different set of facts than you employ.

[gwhughes]

Tommy, are you saying since wolves are obviously more apt to survive in the wild than say a labradoodle, that without man's hand in it natural selection would dictate that all canines of today would be wolves?

[Buffalo]

Evolution isn't an ability so much as a process.
yep.

[Buffalo]

it does however destroy the religious concept that god created all animals as is........
It certainly counters the young earth theories as well

[ThrowCop]

Ok time to prove the incompleteness of the theory of evolution.'kay, I'm listening.

Did the first life form to appear in the universe come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve or did evolution come about later?While Dawin did not address this, life has the ability to evolve once you get beyond the simplest of organisms.

If you answer that the first life form did come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve then your argument strongly supports Intelligent Design. In fact, there can be not other conclusion logically possible.Yes, there is another conclusion that is logically possible - you just can't accept it.

In terms of pure science, Darwin's theory is a joke.Since you do not seem to know what Darwin's theory entails, I don't think I'll hold you up as an expert in anything beyond circular nonsense, thanks...

[Voxpopuli]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically discredit the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts?
The Peppered Moth would be a better example of natural selection.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/butterfly/glossary/pepperedmoth.shtml

[Late2TheParty]

Darwinism and creationism are not opposites, although you probably know this. In fact, one can subscribe to the modern theory of evolution and still believe in a creator or a higher power.

Literal bible believers still have a problem because it says go created all the animals in 6 days and other such things in genesis, and evolution pokes a hole into that specific interpretation - how many other parts does it open to question? That is why some churches go so far as to depict Jesus with dinosaurs in order to reconcile this dilemma.

[Czhorat]

Ok time to prove the incompleteness of the theory of evolution.

Did the first life form to appear in the universe come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve or did evolution come about later?

There's no "ability to evolve". Species evolve through natural selection when members better able to survive live long enough to breed and less successful ones don't. Any species that can reproduce will evolve over time.

[Buffalo]

There is a poster on the boards, Greyclouds, who really enjoys evolution discussions and has a host of facts and evidence right at his fingertips. Marleysdaddy is well informed also. I would not question an aerodynamics expert as to how a heavy ass plane can fly by using "common sense" to counter his years of education and training.

[CrusaderFrank]

George Carlin, I think, said it best, "If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

[Buffalo]

Literal bible believers still have a problem because it says go created all the animals in 6 days and other such things in genesis, and evolution pokes a hole into that specific interpretation - how many other parts does it open to question? That is why some churches go so far as to depict Jesus with dinosaurs in order to reconcile this dilemma.
It's an issue for sure. I myself am a Christian, and I accept the modern theory of evolution. Obviously I am not a literalist.

[margaretms]

There is a poster on the boards, Greyclouds, who really enjoys evolution discussions and has a host of facts and evidence right at his fingertips. Marleysdaddy is well informed also. I would not question an aerodynamics expert as to how a heavy ass plane can fly by using "common sense" to counter his years of education and training.

Joenumber2--does he still post here?--had an excellent method of explaining evolution, as well. I'll try to find it.

[Buffalo]

George Carlin, I think, said it best, "If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"
Because man didn't evolve from monkeys and apes, but kepp that argument going please. It certainly shows the level of investigation you've put into understanding human evolution.

[Vaard]

Tommy, are you saying since wolves are obviously more apt to survive in the wild than say a labradoodle, that without man's hand in it natural selection would dictate that all canines of today would be wolves?

well, without the domestication of dogs by humans, i dont think there would be a dog.....

they would still be wolves, jackals and hyenas.......

[ThrowCop]

Literal bible believers still have a problem because it says go created all the animals in 6 days and other such things in genesis, and evolution pokes a hole into that specific interpretation - how many other parts does it open to question? That is why some churches go so far as to depict Jesus with dinosaurs in order to reconcile this dilemma.I believe in God & evolution.

The unwillingness of most religions to accept scientific fact is one reason I stopped going to church when even my then 13-year-old mind could not accept what my church told me about the origin of the universe.

[Buffalo]

Joenumber2--does he still post here?--had an excellent method of explaining evolution, as well. I'll try to find it.
Never seen it, but it would be interesting. I have about a thousand dollars worth of undergrad texts I would gladly loan out to anyone who would like to read. The library is a good place too. Or you could go by what you think George Carlin said.

[Ninjacorpse]

Joenumber2--does he still post here?--had an excellent method of explaining evolution, as well. I'll try to find it.

I believe he was expelled long ago.

[margaretms]

My degree in biology and minor in anthropology has exposed me to a different set of facts than you employ.

Tear your degree from the wall, burn it, and start over from scratch. Ken Ham will be your guide.

http://www.nlpg.com/store/images/A-Adam.gif

[ThrowCop]

Joenumber2--does he still post here?--had an excellent method of explaining evolution, as well. I'll try to find it.J2 was hit by the ban hammer I believe, but yeah, he was a smart, if altogether snotty kid. :)

[Vaard]

George Carlin, I think, said it best, "If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

if dogs evolved form wolves, why are their still wolves around?


and by the way.. george carlin never said that........

[Buffalo]

Tear your degree from the wall, burn it, and start over from scratch. Ken Ham will be your guide.

http://www.nlpg.com/store/images/A-Adam.gif
I love it.

[gwhughes]

It's an issue for sure. I myself am a Christian, and I accept the modern theory of evolution. Obviously I am not a literalist.

If God said He snapped the world into existence 3 weeks ago, along with all of us, our memories and the history of this world, I'd have no choice but to believe Him. How do you disprove such a thing?

Personally I am not a strict literalist, I think he created within the confines of science because he also created that.

[Greyclouds]

George Carlin, I think, said it best, "If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?"

Because of two reasons:

1. Humans have a COMMON ANCESTOR with monkeys and apes; monkeys and apes did not "evolve into" humans.

2. Monkeys and apes still fill important ecological niches in certain environments in the world.


Here's one question to ponder: why are there no indigenous monkeys in the continental US? Your choices are: (a) Because Noah failed to spread them here after the flood. (b) Because there was a geographic isolation of the American supercontinent from the larger European-Asian-African landmass prior to the delineation of monkeys and apes from a common ancestor.

[muhadeeb99]

There's no "ability to evolve". Species evolve through natural selection when members better able to survive live long enough to breed and less successful ones don't. Any species that can reproduce will evolve over time.
Simple an true. The key words "...can reproduce will evolve over time" are a fact. Short and sweeeeeeet.

[Nashville]

Do a lot of people claim that natural selection is a myth? Natural selection or adaptation to cope with changes in the environment is observable. I don't think that's where the big debate is. Isn't molecule to man or ape to man where most of the debate is?

[muhadeeb99]

if dogs evolved form wolves, why are their still wolves around?


and by the way.. george carlin never said that........
Wolves evolved to become better wolves. This is due to adaptation to their environmrnt.

[Buffalo]

If God said He snapped the world into existence 3 weeks ago, along with all of us, our memories and the history of this world, I'd have no choice but to believe Him. How do you disprove such a thing?

Personally I am not a strict literalist, I think he created within the confines of science because he also created that.
Pretty close to my mindset on the subject.

[wayoverthehill]

Fascinating as this discussion is, why is it in WP?

[MrShotShot]

I believe in God & evolution.

The unwillingness of most religions to accept scientific fact is one reason I stopped going to church when even my then 13-year-old mind could not accept what my church told me about the origin of the universe.

I'm right there with you Throw. I just don't see why belief in both is such a problem. Evolution goes on around us all of the time. To deny that is simple ignorance. Conversely, no one really knows what "got the ball rolling" so to speak.

Of course, I have cousins who believe that dinosaurs didn't exist and that all of the fossils are simply rocks that some scientist put together. Uh, OK.

[Czhorat]

I would not question an aerodynamics expert as to how a heavy ass plane can fly by using "common sense" to counter his years of education and training.

In one sentence you explained the central fallacy behind right-wing anti-intellectual populism (as opposed to left-wing anti-wealth populism): the idea that the experts don't know better. For simple issues on a limitted time scale there are simple solutions; more complex issues often have counterintuitive answers.

It's why some people reject the greenhouse effect on the argument that concentrations on the order of magnitute in parts per million can't possibly make a significane effect.

It's why people reject evolution because they don't see species changing, and it feels wrong.

It's why they reject arguments against corporal punishment, because the idea that a spanking correctw wrong behaviour feels right.

[MrShotShot]

In one sentence you explained the central fallacy behind right-wing anti-intellectual populism (as opposed to left-wing anti-wealth populism): the idea that the experts don't know better. For simple issues on a limitted time scale there are simple solutions; more complex issues often have counterintuitive answers.

It's why some people reject the greenhouse effect on the argument that concentrations on the order of magnitute in parts per million can't possibly make a significane effect.

It's why people reject evolution because they don't see species changing, and it feels wrong.

It's why they reject arguments against corporal punishment, because the idea that a spanking correctw wrong behaviour feels right.

I don't really see this as a left-right issue.

I know a lot of Democrats who believe in Jesus Horses.

[muhadeeb99]

Do a lot of people claim that natural selection is a myth? Natural selection or adaptation to cope with changes in the environment is observable. I don't think that's where the big debate is. Isn't molecule to man or ape to man where most of the debate is.
Molecule to man argument is where the gaugeing is beyond the measurement of modern man. Most Creationists would rather use a yardstick to make their poiint whereas scientific measurement is on a larger scale, much so that I don't have time to explain fully or walk a person through. To do so would require me to explain from root nodule to leaf and the between parts too.

Just don't bark up my tree.:)):)):))

[Nashville]

I don't really see this as a left-right issue.

I know a lot of Democrats who believe in Jesus Horses.


What are "Jesus Horses?"

[gwhughes]

Pretty close to my mindset on the subject.

I do question time though. It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around, Alpha Omega, infinite being.....who's to say he didn't start the clock the moment man was created, or some scribes could have just screwed that whole Genisis up....but then you gotta wonder what else they botched.

I'll just go along with it in hopes to keep a burning pitchfork out of my ass. :)

[Late2TheParty]

If God said He snapped the world into existence 3 weeks ago, along with all of us, our memories and the history of this world, I'd have no choice but to believe Him. How do you disprove such a thing?

Let's say that god tells you directly: you have to discount that you may be having delusions to a number of factors - drugs or other natural phenonema. Or how about an ultra powerful alien with technology way more advanced than ours poses as god? It's just a long way to say it's definitely god...

Or let's say that you are told by a book or other people: you must start having faith in mortals that their story has more credence than a fairy tale novel. Eyewitness accounts in court are often the most dubious evidence.

In any case, for such a question, science can't answer that. It's not designed to answer those questions. I would take ockham's razor to that theory, but others have different but valid viewpoints on such a thing.

[Greyclouds]

Ok time to prove the incompleteness of the theory of evolution.

Did the first life form to appear in the universe come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve or did evolution come about later?

If it has DNA, it logically has the ability to evolve. It really is that simple.

The chemistry of the DNA molecule makes it SO malleable as to constantly undergo change. There is a BIG reason why your cells MUST have DNA Replication Repair enzymes working nearly non-stop! Imagine a time when such repair enzymes did NOT exist! You'd have bacterial cells mutating almost every generation!


If you answer that the first life form did come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve then your argument strongly supports Intelligent Design. In fact, there can not be any other conclusion logically possible.

Yes, there is a logically possible conclusion:

DNA is an organic chemical polymer that is capable of self-assembly. This is observable fact.

So, knowledgeable scientists are not FOR intelligent design.


If you answer that the ability to evolve was gained later then you are arguing nonsense. The ability to evolve would either be there at the beginning or be completely absent. Evolving the ability to evolve makes no logical sense and cannot be supported by any solid science.

All that the pro Darwinian can argue at this point is "random cosmic accident" which requires every bit as much faith in an unprovable as "because god made it that way."

This destroys the "there is no god or intelligent design because of Darwin's theory" logic totally and utterly, and we haven't even crossed over into the many holes in Darwin's theory in the fossil records. If Evolution were as strong a theory as Quantum Field Theory then it would have predicted the exact biological features of then unknown organisms soon to be discovered the way QFT predicted the exact features of then unknown sub atomic quanta.

In terms of pure science, Darwin's theory is a joke.

Incorrect. You have two false premises here:

1. That the Theory of Evolution suggests that there is no God.
2. That the Quantum Field Theory predicts FUTURE SPECIFICS and that the Theory of Evolution ALSO predicts FUTURE SPECIFICS.

Here is an analogy of the spurious nature of your second premise:

Use the Quantum Field Theory to predict the exact position of electron number 6 of the Carbon atom #3.6 x 10^200 at 2:00:00:00 AM on Friday morning. What? You need more data? Also, you can only give the probability of the electron's position?

I think I just "disproved" the Quantum Field Theory :lol:

[Socrates]

well, without the domestication of dogs by humans, i dont think there would be a dog.....

they would still be wolves, jackals and hyenas.......

Which are basically just varieties of feral dogs. So without domestication, dogs would not be domestic.

[Apatriot]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically put paid to the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts?


Well, no. All it means is that artificial selection works. Just because artificial selection works, doesn't mean that natural selection doesn't work. Darwin used examples of artificial selection as a way to illustrate how natural selection should work. There are several parts to natural selection:
Organisms produce more offspring than they need.
There is a heritable variabilty in those offspring.
The offspring who have the variable characteristic that is positive breed and produce more offspring.

Artificial selection is the same, except that instead of a trait being chosen by the environment, it is chosen by the breeder.

[gwhughes]

well, without the domestication of dogs by humans, i dont think there would be a dog.....

they would still be wolves, jackals and hyenas.......

Wonder which would be more dominant in Australia, dingo or wolf?

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Tommy, are you saying since wolves are obviously more apt to survive in the wild than say a labradoodle, that without man's hand in it natural selection would dictate that all canines of today would be wolves?

Without human intervention, there would be no such thing as a dog.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Which are basically just varieties of feral dogs. So without domestication, dogs would not be domestic.

Dogs are genetically engineered wolves, not the other way around.

[Apatriot]

but yeah, the discovery channel, history channel and natgoe have all had shows about the evoklution and breeding of dogs........


and not to derail, but the show on cats stated that the cat was the only animal bred by man that has not become domesticated......

I think it's that cats are the only ones domesticated by choice. Cats can quickly go feral, and vice versa

[Late2TheParty]

Without human intervention, there would be no such thing as a dog.

Humans are natural and part of nature, not apart from it. Dogs get breed breeded according to our human criteria as we become the dominant environmental factor in their lives, instead of 1,000,000s of different species around the animal influence what's successful, and other mammals specifically being their competition, it's reduced to us and micro-organisms.

Weak dogs still die off. Traits such as cuteness and other things we value survive. Certain traits may look like mutations in nature thrive under us, but then there are some weird animals in the ocean deep. Just a reflection of the environment around it.

[gwhughes]

Dogs are genetically engineered wolves, not the other way around.

Because of natural selection, would wild dogs become wolves?

[Vaard]

Which are basically just varieties of feral dogs. So without domestication, dogs would not be domestic.

not as far as i understand it......

from what i understand, dogs are domesticated wolves......

dogs that escaped into the wild became feral dogs.......

but with out humans domesticating the wolve into a dog, there would be no dogs to escape and go feral........

[ExDem]

Because dogs have evolved quite provably through natural selection.

Where are you getting the "natural" part? You are talking about selective breeding. What does nature have to do with that?

[Vaard]

I think it's that cats are the only ones domesticated by choice. Cats can quickly go feral, and vice versa

cats are not domesticated.. they only take advantage of humans weaknesses to soft fur and purring.......


one of the points made was that if humans shrunk to where they were smalled than cats and dogs, dogs would still consider humans part of their packs... cats would just see food.....

[Apatriot]

Ok time to prove the incompleteness of the theory of evolution.

Did the first life form to appear in the universe come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve or did evolution come about later?

If you answer that the first life form did come pre-equipped with the ability to evolve then your argument strongly supports Intelligent Design. In fact, there can not be any other conclusion logically possible.

If you answer that the ability to evolve was gained later then you are arguing nonsense. The ability to evolve would either be there at the beginning or be completely absent. Evolving the ability to evolve makes no logical sense and cannot be supported by any solid science.

All that the pro Darwinian can argue at this point is "random cosmic accident" which requires every bit as much faith in an unprovable as "because god made it that way."

This destroys the "there is no god or intelligent design because of Darwin's theory" logic totally and utterly, and we haven't even crossed over into the many holes in Darwin's theory in the fossil records. If Evolution were as strong a theory as Quantum Field Theory then it would have predicted the exact biological features of then unknown organisms soon to be discovered the way QFT predicted the exact features of then unknown sub atomic quanta.

In terms of pure science, Darwin's theory is a joke.


The ability to evolve requires only 2 things: 1) genetic variability and 2) ability to produce more offspring than simple replacement.

[StoneScratcher]

The fossil record destroys Darwin's theory by deomonstrating its glaring incompleteness. There are far too many gaps to logically confirm Darwin's theory. At best, he is only partially correct.

What about this scenario:

A couple of hundred thousand years from now, some earth-being finds a fossil of a chihuahua. Then, thousands of miles away, some other earth-being finds a fossil of a great dane.

Will the first being say to the second being:

My chihuahua fossil came first because I have the mini-version of what yours came to be through evolving?

Or will the second being say to the first:

My great dane fossil came first because there must have been a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere and your great dane fossil (actually chihuahua) indicates great danes evolved into smaller versions.

Of course, the above is a loose example, but the question remains:

Who really knows what we're looking at with fossils?

Clearly an earth being (current man) forced change upon the canine. Without record of that preserved in a way that will survive burn, freeze, and complete destruction, only the remains (including fossils) will bear witness to what really happened. What will the future say about our present? Human beings have manipulated the canine.

[Czhorat]

What about this scenario:

A couple of hundred thousand years from now, some earth-being finds a fossil of a chihuahua. Then, thousands of miles away, some other earth-being finds a fossil of a great dane.

<<SNIP>>
Of course, the above is a loose example, but the question remains:

Who really knows what we're looking at with fossils?

That's an interesting little thought experiment, but it doesn't take into account various methods of dating fossils to know what came first and what evolved into what, not to mention genetic analysis telling us what species have common ancestry. There is more to it than looking at fossils.

[StoneScratcher]

That's an interesting little thought experiment, but it doesn't take into account various methods of dating fossils to know what came first and what evolved into what, not to mention genetic analysis telling us what species have common ancestry. There is more to it than looking at fossils.

Explain what you mean by "genetic analysis" and how, using my "interesting little thought experiment", one could find the genetic origin, of say a glow-in-the dark puppy (as is found in Japan today), if one were able to extract genetic material from a puppy fossil such as this thousands of years from now?

Also, with dating "fossil", suppose that glow-puppy's fossil, at the ten-thousand year mark had some organic matter slip into tiny cracks and then died. If this happens, when this fossil is found, 20 thousand years later, would the person finding this fossil date the fossil based on the organic matter's date of contamination (of original glow-puppy fossil), or would the person finding the fossil date it to the date the fossil of the glow puppy was created?

And what would be the glow puppy's common ancestry?

If we crossed a small lizard with a quail (today), what would they say 30 thousand years from now (tomorrow)?

[gwhughes]

Thats one ****ed up looking quail?

[Greyclouds]

Explain what you mean by "genetic analysis" and how, using my "interesting little thought experiment", one could find the genetic origin, of say a glow-in-the dark puppy (as is found in Japan today), if one were able to extract genetic material from a puppy fossil such as this thousands of years from now?

Not from a puppy fossil, but rather from other currently alive species.

A good 90+% of all Eukaryotic genomes are composed of non-coding DNA. Think of this massive portion of a genome as being like the graffiti on a wall. It accumulates over time and can be used to determine the "age" of the graffiti by comparisons with other similar species.

For instance, there are some deactivated viruses present in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees, but not in some of the Old world Monkeys. By this comparison, we can tell that the viral infection was relatively "recent," and likely occurred in the common ancestor of humans and chimps, but NOT the common ancestor of all primates.

See?


Also, with dating "fossil", suppose that glow-puppy's fossil, at the ten-thousand year mark had some organic matter slip into tiny cracks and then died. If this happens, when this fossil is found, 20 thousand years later, would the person finding this fossil date the fossil based on the organic matter's date of contamination (of original glow-puppy fossil), or would the person finding the fossil date it to the date the fossil of the glow puppy was created?

Then you sample outside of the compromised region or sample regions throughout the fossil to determine the age. I believe that they do that currently.



And what would be the glow puppy's common ancestry?

It would be the same species as its current breed.

In order to make a dog "glow" you just simply incorporate the gene, "luciferase" into its genome with a very strong gene promoter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferase

That would be the only genetic difference. It would not impede mating, metabolism or any other factor of the dog, apart from the potentially detrimental light that it would shed during night hunting.

That is the reason why dogs do not naturally glow in the dark! They'd be seen a mile away!


If we crossed a small lizard with a quail (today), what would they say 30 thousand years from now (tomorrow)?

Chromosome incompatibility would make this impossible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intragenomic_conflict


There would be other significant biochemical issues (including gene dose lethality) but I will spare you the explication here.


To give you a hint towards the right direction: think smaller! Bacteria horizontally transfer genes all the time! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer The difference is that the horizontally transferred gene can be detected based on it's ratio of A, G, C, and T in comparison to the host genome.

[Greyclouds]

Thats one ****ed up looking quail?

It probably wouldn't make it to the zygote stage, so you'd be correct :D


We've found that by doing nuclear transfers of human genomes into mouse cell lines, the mouse will reject all but ONE human chromosome, and this is at random. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WBK-45MFS0H-K8&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=553c40a1c27d058090244e4b046803ac

It hardly makes the mouse cells "human" and they often get rid of the human chromosome after repeated plating. Oh, and it only works in mouse tumor cells!

[StoneScratcher]

Thats one ****ed up looking quail?

Sort of like this in some regards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL0UIzU0EEc

[StoneScratcher]

It probably wouldn't make it to the zygote stage, so you'd be correct :D


We've found that by doing nuclear transfers of human genomes into mouse cell lines, the mouse will reject all but ONE human chromosome, and this is at random. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WBK-45MFS0H-K8&_user=669286&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000036298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=669286&md5=553c40a1c27d058090244e4b046803ac

It hardly makes the mouse cells "human" and they often get rid of the human chromosome after repeated plating. Oh, and it only works in mouse tumor cells!

You're missing my point. What makes anyone so sure we have all the answers before anyone else thought they did?

[Greyclouds]

You're missing my point. What makes anyone so sure we have all the answers before anyone else thought they did?

Then you're misreading my statement. I'm making tentative conclusions based on data recorded from similar phenomena.

Sure, we haven't necessarily done the exact same thing that you've proposed, yet, but that doesn't mean that we cannot make educated hypotheses about the results based on similar situations.

That is EXACTLY what a theory is! It's a predictive general statement based on evidence of similar phenomena without the necessity of direct observation in all cases!


So, you should reread the "PROBABLY" of my statement and realize that scientists never make definitive statements on theoretical applications.

[Greyclouds]

Sort of like this in some regards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL0UIzU0EEc

Interesting assumption. Surely you realize that chromosome contents have changed between a lizard and a quail, right?

That is why I suggested that such a hybrid would not even progress to the zygote stage if you were to do a normal artificial insemination! If you did a nuclear transfer, that would also likely result in either an embryonic lethal or in a single chromosome being maintained in the cells.

[StoneScratcher]

Interesting assumption. Surely you realize that chromosome contents have changed between a lizard and a quail, right?

That is why I suggested that such a hybrid would not even progress to the zygote stage if you were to do a normal artificial insemination! If you did a nuclear transfer, that would also likely result in either an embryonic lethal or in a single chromosome being maintained in the cells.

Suppose you are force-evolved, you are pushed forward 100 thousand years.

Whatever your body is, is whatever it is.

But would you still be you, in essence? (Spirit, mind, soul, consciousness, whatever you personally think it is).

Or would you regress as an essence because your body (hormones and all) have evolved your physical earthly flesh into a "vehicle", so well adapted and strong and streamlined, it would, perhaps so severely atrophy your awareness of your "essence" that your "essence" would not register. There would be no "conscience" to interfer with satisfying the body (so it could evolve further).

Body evolves. Essence, atrophies.

A mass of individual beings all serving to benefit the "whole society". Ants, for example. Interdependent but not aware of "self essence".

[Greyclouds]

Suppose you are force-evolved, you are pushed forward 100 thousand years.

To give you a sense of generational scale, this would be approximately 5 thousand generations assuming human generations remain at an average of 20 years.


Whatever your body is, is whatever it is.

But would you still be you, in essence? (Spirit, mind, soul, consciousness, whatever you personally think it is).

Depends on the selective pressures on the human race based on female preference for mating partners.

If women prefer smart men, then you'd expect an individual in the future to have a higher relative intelligence quotient. If women prefer aggressive men, then you'd expect a proliferation of alleles that result in lower monoamine oxidase production. If women do not have a particular preference, then you'd expect punctuated equilibrium, or a maintenance of the same allelic variation that we have today.

Hormonal influences on the brain are the primary causes of emotion. Ancillary to that are formations of neural connections in association to the reception of such hormones. For instance, subject a woman to enough oxytocin at the sight of a male picture, and she'll fall in love with the man. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1058/


Or would you regress as an essence because your body (hormones and all) have evolved your physical earthly flesh into a "vehicle", so well adapted and strong and streamlined, it would, perhaps so severely atrophy your awareness of your "essence" that your "essence" would not register. There would be no "conscience" to interfer with satisfying the body (so it could evolve further).

Most likely not. I can see no viable selective pressures that would promote the adoption of
knockout alleles in lieu of the social hormone genes in humans. Why? Because we're low-litter mammals and our infants require far more work prior to their maturation.


Body evolves. Essence, atrophies.

What leads you to state this?


A mass of individual beings all serving to benefit the "whole society". Ants, for example. Interdependent but not aware of "self essence".

Because they lack the brain architecture that we have. Ants also have a biological caste system that does not require immaterial social hierarchies for mating. Their ability to mate is restricted based on physiology, not by social status.

Primatologists can literally determine the size of primate colonies based on the size of the brain cavity in a primate skull. The smaller the cavity, the smaller the colony size.

[birddog1]

Thats one ****ed up looking quail?

As long as it taste like quail who cares what it looks like. I say make them about the size of a Komodo dragon.

[captusa]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically discredit the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts?

Being attractive and useful to humans was the survival trait that the successful dog breeds exhibited that lead to their survival.
A Teacup Chihuahua is better adapted to living in LA than a wolf.
Obviously the niche that the Teacup Chihuahua fills is different than that of a Doberman or a wolf.

Also your history of different breeds is inaccurate.
Pit-Bull terriers were not originally bred to hunt rodents and are probably more removed from bloodhounds that most breeds.
The smaller terriers were the original ratters and the relatively large and smooth-haired English Terrier (now extinct) was mated with the original Bulldog to produce the original Pit-Bull.
Pit-Bulls were used in rat killing contests because the smaller original rat terriers would have difficulty surviving in a pit with 100 or more rats.

[captusa]

Where are you getting the "natural" part? You are talking about selective breeding. What does nature have to do with that?

In the wild, natural selection is effected by changes in germplasm and the conditions.
The traits that allow a specie or sub-specie to thrive is based on how well it adapts to the conditions effecting their survival.
Speed, strength ability to work in a pack are survival advantages in the wild.
Being cute or appealing to other human preferences is a superior survival trait where the species lives in human society.

[StoneScratcher]

To give you a sense of generational scale, this would be approximately 5 thousand generations assuming human generations remain at an average of 20 years.



Depends on the selective pressures on the human race based on female preference for mating partners.

If women prefer smart men, then you'd expect an individual in the future to have a higher relative intelligence quotient. If women prefer aggressive men, then you'd expect a proliferation of alleles that result in lower monoamine oxidase production. If women do not have a particular preference, then you'd expect punctuated equilibrium, or a maintenance of the same allelic variation that we have today.

Hormonal influences on the brain are the primary causes of emotion. Ancillary to that are formations of neural connections in association to the reception of such hormones. For instance, subject a woman to enough oxytocin at the sight of a male picture, and she'll fall in love with the man. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/1058/



Most likely not. I can see no viable selective pressures that would promote the adoption of
knockout alleles in lieu of the social hormone genes in humans. Why? Because we're low-litter mammals and our infants require far more work prior to their maturation.



What leads you to state this?



Because they lack the brain architecture that we have. Ants also have a biological caste system that does not require immaterial social hierarchies for mating. Their ability to mate is restricted based on physiology, not by social status.

Primatologists can literally determine the size of primate colonies based on the size of the brain cavity in a primate skull. The smaller the cavity, the smaller the colony size.

What if this:

Without trying to fit today's science into how it can/cannot be done, or why I think peacock feathers are beautifully dumb, why not speculate, for a moment this:

What if we are not there, (science/biosciene-wise), to do what was already done in the past? What if we are mid-cycle, (because it is all in cycles, "it" being everything)?

What if our ancestors were more sophisticated in body than we are today? By "in body" I mean all that is contained as a biological function--not consciousness of self as a being who would "emote" for any purpose other than in response to body's "calling" or outside affects (pain)?

What if our ancestors, as individuals, were similar to what sharks are? I'm not saying we were fish, by the way. What I mean is as a shark is in his thinking, because there is no thinking, there is purpose. To live--to survive, to satisfy the body. That purpose.

What if we evolve back to that, become without conscience but with purpose and we, as ants or bees, are one organism of individuals unaware of self essence?

With that focus of purpose, imagine all that could be done? No conscience, but a civilization in supreme order.

[ExDem]

In the wild, natural selection is effected by changes in germplasm and the conditions.
The traits that allow a specie or sub-specie to thrive is based on how well it adapts to the conditions effecting their survival.
Speed, strength ability to work in a pack are survival advantages in the wild.
Being cute or appealing to other human preferences is a superior survival trait where the species lives in human society.

But he wasn't talking about natural selection.

[ISYairio]

It doesn't really make a case for natural selection but it certainly shows that evolution, albeit directed evolution is not only possible, it is remarkably diverse in its outcomes.Maybe you might know:

I could swear I heard/read that despite what understanding we have of evolution that we still don't understand how they got so much variety so fast? That true?

[sgdp]

<snip>

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

<snip>


I have a hard time believing such about pit bulls.

My brother just got a bite on the ass from a pit bull. Nasty dogs.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

I have a hard time believing such about pit bulls.

My brother just got a bite on the ass from a pit bull. Nasty dogs.

You're more likely to get bit by a Dalmation than a pit bull.

But, if a pit bull does bite you, it will inflict significantly more damage if they lock their jaws.

[gwhughes]

I had a pitbull jump the fence on me today, came out of my customer's back yard when I pulled up in the drive, jumped the fence and was right in front of me(I'm out of my vehicle walking towards the door at this point, thought the fence would hold him back.)

At first I was a little scared, didn't have much time for any reaction at all, so my first instinct was to grab his ears and pet on him. He was friendly as can be. I petted him and played around with him a while and went to work. I guess if he hadn't been friendly the plan was to hold on to his ears and try to prevent him from biting me.

[MrShotShot]

When I was growing up our Australian Shephard would routinely put the UPS man in the tree - she hated Brown apparently.

Our Pit Bull, well he'd only attack if you interrupted his nap.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

I had a pitbull jump the fence on me today, came out of my customer's back yard when I pulled up in the drive, jumped the fence and was right in front of me(I'm out of my vehicle walking towards the door at this point, thought the fence would hold him back.)

At first I was a little scared, didn't have much time for any reaction at all, so my first instinct was to grab his ears and pet on him. He was friendly as can be. I petted him and played around with him a while and went to work. I guess if he hadn't been friendly the plan was to hold on to his ears and try to prevent him from biting me.

Dogs have a hollow chest. If they jump at you, sink your fist or elbow into the top half of their torso just below the neck and it will knock the wind out of them.

[Marleysdaddy]

Wonder which would be more dominant in Australia, dingo or wolf?

Without humans, neither. Several species of bats are the ONLY placental mammals indigenous to Australia.

[Greyclouds]

What if this:

Without trying to fit today's science into how it can/cannot be done, or why I think peacock feathers are beautifully dumb, why not speculate, for a moment this:

What if we are not there, (science/biosciene-wise), to do what was already done in the past? What if we are mid-cycle, (because it is all in cycles, "it" being everything)?

What if our ancestors were more sophisticated in body than we are today? By "in body" I mean all that is contained as a biological function--not consciousness of self as a being who would "emote" for any purpose other than in response to body's "calling" or outside affects (pain)?

What if our ancestors, as individuals, were similar to what sharks are? I'm not saying we were fish, by the way. What I mean is as a shark is in his thinking, because there is no thinking, there is purpose. To live--to survive, to satisfy the body. That purpose.

What if we evolve back to that, become without conscience but with purpose and we, as ants or bees, are one organism of individuals unaware of self essence?

With that focus of purpose, imagine all that could be done? No conscience, but a civilization in supreme order.

Well, in order to speculate as to that outcome, we WOULD have to ignore alot of physiological mechanisms that we've uncovered in human brain development as well as alot of observable trends in biological systems.


What would be the ecological niche that we would inhabit as a multi-individual organism? What selective pressures would drive us in that direction?


The ability to exist eusocially (the biological term for the type of communal relationship that ants, termites and mole rats exist under) is primarily caused by genetic factors (direct or indirect). Repressed sexuality of worker castes by genes is typical of such a society.

Humans are ALREADY eusocial to a degree. We engage in inclusive fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness) though it is only PARTLY based on genetic factors (oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine primary messenger hormones). Much of our altruism as a community is based on COGNITIVE recognition as well! Our formation of social hierarchies is based on terminal brain architecture that allows for cognition in addition to hormonal factors. So, you treat your neighbor well even though he is not related to you (cognition) and you treat your family/mate well (genetic/hormonal).

Your suggestion is that there is a possibility for us to lose the cognitive aspect of our social behavior. Here's what would happen in that case:

1. Humans would form "cliques" of genetically similar groups. Each "hive" of humans would consist of different castes of workers who do not reproduce sexually, and alpha males/females who do.
2. Human physiology would most likely change in such situations. The repression of sexual characteristics in the worker castes would result in differences in appearance.
3. Higher order technology would completely fall by the way-side; survival of the hive would be paramount and individual cognition would be completely superseded by pheromonal/hormonal stimuli based on the overal tension of the hive.

Civilization is a cognitive pursuit. The development of hives is a genetic response to community chemical stimuli.

I don't see how your scenario could play out on an evolutionary or behavioral basis given what we currently know about human genetic and cognitive aspects.

[Drew2]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically discredit the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts?

I'll be the first to admit I'm no scientist, but it sounds like you're describing adaptation vs. evolution. Dogs are still dogs. They haven't evolved into another species..................that I'm aware of. I'm not sure cross breeding, etc. negates natural selection.

[StoneScratcher]

Well, in order to speculate as to that outcome, we WOULD have to ignore alot of physiological mechanisms that we've uncovered in human brain development as well as alot of observable trends in biological systems.


What would be the ecological niche that we would inhabit as a multi-individual organism? What selective pressures would drive us in that direction?


The ability to exist eusocially (the biological term for the type of communal relationship that ants, termites and mole rats exist under) is primarily caused by genetic factors (direct or indirect). Repressed sexuality of worker castes by genes is typical of such a society.

Humans are ALREADY eusocial to a degree. We engage in inclusive fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness) though it is only PARTLY based on genetic factors (oxytocin, vasopressin, and dopamine primary messenger hormones). Much of our altruism as a community is based on COGNITIVE recognition as well! Our formation of social hierarchies is based on terminal brain architecture that allows for cognition in addition to hormonal factors. So, you treat your neighbor well even though he is not related to you (cognition) and you treat your family/mate well (genetic/hormonal).

Your suggestion is that there is a possibility for us to lose the cognitive aspect of our social behavior. Here's what would happen in that case:

1. Humans would form "cliques" of genetically similar groups. Each "hive" of humans would consist of different castes of workers who do not reproduce sexually, and alpha males/females who do.
2. Human physiology would most likely change in such situations. The repression of sexual characteristics in the worker castes would result in differences in appearance.
3. Higher order technology would completely fall by the way-side; survival of the hive would be paramount and individual cognition would be completely superseded by pheromonal/hormonal stimuli based on the overal tension of the hive.

Civilization is a cognitive pursuit. The development of hives is a genetic response to community chemical stimuli.

I don't see how your scenario could play out on an evolutionary or behavioral basis given what we currently know about human genetic and cognitive aspects.

Take bioscience and genome research and put it into the equation. Similar to the way Tommy has introduced by playing "god" with their design, biosciences can play "god" with cognitive ability and also "civility". There is a "civility" research group, which has, for decades been probing the chemical properties of the brain to chemically straight-jacket "uncivil" behaviors, as you may know.

But what if this:

What if we (as today's humans) force that essence I was speaking of, that conscience, soul, spirit, free-thinking, ability (as you say, the "cognitive aspect of our social behavior"), into complete or nearly complete atrophy? Force that hive?


1. Humans would form "cliques" of genetically similar groups. Each "hive" of humans would consist of different castes of workers who do not reproduce sexually, and alpha males/females who do.


The "alpha male/female" would run/rule/dictate orders to their specific groups. The alpha's would not be subjected to bio-alteration (as the "bees/ants" are). They are the "free thinkers". They coordinate their groups to efforts that will benefit them as the "serfs" go about doing what benefits their "hive". In other words, the king eats honey, the workers loyally work to survive, etc.


2. Human physiology would most likely change in such situations. The repression of sexual characteristics in the worker castes would result in differences in appearance.



Who cares, really what the serfs private parts look like? If they are not "stimulated" (in the sense of "cause and purpose of the hive" to mate, then they have no urge to procreate. For example, a termite queen, ant queen, queen bee, etc. There may be a time that mating is necessary, perhaps even, one "hive" would be engineered (by the free-thinkers) to force endless births to keep the best to work.


3. Higher order technology would completely fall by the way-side; survival of the hive would be paramount and individual cognition would be completely superseded by pheromonal/hormonal stimuli based on the overal tension of the hive.


How simple would it be, to be a King or a Queen and to have an entire "robot-like" civilization of serfs working gleefully for their (serf's) behalf, unknowing it is for the Queen and King's behalf?

They could even work on "jobs" that require putting free-thinkers ideas together, factory style. They could work on green cars, say, putting in today's scheme of things.

They could even build a pyramid.

[captusa]

I have a hard time believing such about pit bulls.

My brother just got a bite on the ass from a pit bull. Nasty dogs.

40 years ago you couldn't find a people aggressive Pit-Bull.
Human aggression was not acceptable in fighting dogs since it is required for handlers to seperate dogs several times during a fight.

Over-breeding and improper use have introduced people aggression.
There are several breeds where human aggressiveness is far more common.
Neopolitan Mastiffs, Anatole Shepherds and Filas are breeds where human aggressiveness is not only common but desired.

Remember Pete on the Little Rascals ?

[muh1616715]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically discredit the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts?

There is no theory that natural selection is a myth. No scientists deny natural selection. There are countless examples that have proven that it exists: antibiotic-resistant bacteria, drug-resistant viruses, human resistance to malaria, and other changes in allele frequencies.

What many people in America do not accept is common ancestry. However, with all the genomic evidence to support it (not to mention anatomical vestiges, biogeography, and the fossil record), nearly all scientists accept it.

[StoneScratcher]

There is no theory that natural selection is a myth. No scientists deny natural selection. There are countless examples that have proven that it exists: antibiotic-resistant bacteria, drug-resistant viruses, human resistance to malaria, and other changes in allele frequencies.

What many people in America do not accept is common ancestry. However, with all the genomic evidence to support it (not to mention anatomical vestiges, biogeography, and the fossil record), nearly all scientists accept it.

There is a genetic marker, from the Incas to Europe to the USA to Africa to all over the globe, it is found.

We're one big family. All related.

But it goes back only 60,000 years, if I remember correctly.

[biggles53]

Without humans, neither. Several species of bats are the ONLY placental mammals indigenous to Australia.

Astute observation mate.

Even many Aussies don't realise that ALL canines in this country, including the dingo, have been introduced by man.

[Thank you Troops]

Natural selection is not a myth but it can only select from genes that are already there, it cannot creat new genes. In other words a dog cannot produce a new kind of animal.

[Kelzan]

Because dogs have evolved quite provably through natural selection.

Much of the changes in dogs was through artificial selection, but it still reinforces natural selection. It proves that a species can change over time due to selection.
Darwin looked at artificial selection when coming up with his theory of natural selection, he devoted considerable space to in his book.

[sgtmac_46]

I had a pretty fascinating conversation with my friend who is a professional dog trainer about the origins of dogs in general, and I thought it was pretty interesting when seen in light of the evolutionary debate. Goes like this:

Dogs are originally bred from wolves, and they basically created dogs by taking the most docile and least intelligent wolf cubs and breeding them together, then separating them. Eventually it created an animal that would be something like a big-ass border collie.

As the years went by though, dogs adapted to their environment. For instance, the pit bull terrier, who were bred to kill rodents and other semi-small animals, lost their long coat because they were kept indoors, became basically incapable of surviving in the wild, and while being very animal-aggressive are (despite popular belief) not very human-aggressive at all.

Apparently, the modern dog breeds didn't really emerge until the 1800's, after a few centuries of eugenic breeding and environmental adaptation. Even today, new dog breeds are creating by "mixing in" different breeds into the gene pool until you get what you want. There's even a breed of sniffer dogs that have noses eighty times more powerful than bloodhounds, who were originally pit bulls, then bred with wild jackals (no, really) to increase their olfactory senses, then bred with Labradors to make them more docile.

After learning all this in a long-ass conversation the other day, it got me thinking: Doesn't this basically discredit the theory that natural selection is a myth?

Thoughts? What you describe is more or less accurate, though the process for most of domesticated dogs history was not so straight forward and directed.

Initially wolves or wild dogs followed nomadic tribes, to feed of their leavings. The presence of the animals near the camps was ultimately accepted as beneficial, as the wolves howling and barking at night alerted humans of larger predators.

As time went on, the wolves eventually became more and more accustomed to humans and their camps, and would come in closer and closer to the fires. Humans, for their part, took to feeding the wolves that came in close, and ultimately someone somewhere got the idea to catch wolf pups.

Over the next several thousand years dogs began to adapt to the changing conditions humans brought them in to......some of that adaptation was directed.


This doesn't really speak refute natural selection, as a human being is also a natural force, a natural force that put extreme pressure on the dog, which responded accordingly......specifically this illustrates how human beings have learned to utilize the selection process to our own ends just as we are beginning to manipulate the very genes themselves.

It bears noting that modern breeds of dogs are still genetically similar enough to wolves to breed with them.........wolves and dogs are not technically separate species.

[captusa]

Natural selection is not a myth but it can only select from genes that are already there, it cannot creat new genes. In other words a dog cannot produce a new kind of animal.

Absolutely correct (Unless of course a gene is mutated to introduce a new trait)

[captusa]

What you describe is more or less accurate, though the process for most of domesticated dogs history was not so straight forward and directed.

Initially wolves or wild dogs followed nomadic tribes, to feed of their leavings. The presence of the animals near the camps was ultimately accepted as beneficial, as the wolves howling and barking at night alerted humans of larger predators.

As time went on, the wolves eventually became more and more accustomed to humans and their camps, and would come in closer and closer to the fires. Humans, for their part, took to feeding the wolves that came in close, and ultimately someone somewhere got the idea to catch wolf pups.

Over the next several thousand years dogs began to adapt to the changing conditions humans brought them in to......some of that adaptation was directed.


This doesn't really speak refute natural selection, as a human being is also a natural force, a natural force that put extreme pressure on the dog, which responded accordingly......specifically this illustrates how human beings have learned to utilize the selection process to our own ends just as we are beginning to manipulate the very genes themselves.

It bears noting that modern breeds of dogs are still genetically similar enough to wolves to breed with them.........wolves and dogs are not technically separate species.

Excellent explaination of the more accepted theory.:clap:.:clap:.:clap:.:clap:

[Kelzan]

absolutely correct (unless of course a gene is mutated to introduce a new trait)

+1