First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Selective breeding IS evolution!
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/3/09

Daniel9878 wrote:

The basis of evolution is selection of parents

e.g. Selective breeding

All animal breeders have produced wierd and amazing results, by using selective breeding.
For instance, this extremely muscular cow. Farmers do not have the technology to geneticly modify DNA.
They did it through selection of parents ( choosing the most muscular bulls/cows to breed with ).


I can create the effect of evolution too. If i had the power.
If i killed every person born that had chest hair or grew chest hair later in life, and continued for many generations.
There wont EVER be another person born that will grow chest hair. ( because there wont be any chest haired parents to pass on thier traits to thier children )
THEN I can say that the human race evolved, into a non-chest haired organism.


The human race was spread across a wide area and was seperated for a long period of time
they all had different living conditions and enviroments
you can see the changes through our apperance in different races
if we were seperated long enough, we would have evolved into different sub species
but now we have similar living conditions and we are widely connected through various transportation
and many people from different races live all around the world
gradualy the differences in our races will disappear.

Please leave your opinion..

First of all, it's natural selection not selective breeding.

Your discounting mutations within DNA. Even if a trait is not expressed it can still be present. Eradicating a trait completely is almost impossible even when natural selection in effect. Completely eradicating a trait would also be detrimental to the species itself. A species or population has to adapt to its environment as it changes or it migrates. Therefore, the population would either die out or start to change their preferences for mate selection to better adapt their offspring to the environment. Therefore, unless the population or members of the species live in the exact same environment and said environment never changes, your theory is incorrect.

More info on Types of Mate Selection/ Natural Selection: http://biovolution.blogspot.com/












5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/3/09 , edited 6/3/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

First of all, it's natural selection not selective breeding.

What he described is selective breeding, and it is a type of evolutionary selection.


A species or population has to adapt to its environment as it changes or it migrates. Therefore, the population would either die out or start to change their preferences for mate selection to better adapt their offspring to the environment. Therefore, unless the population or members of the species live in the exact same environment and said environment never changes, your theory is incorrect.


You're only considering evolution in the wild and ignoring the fact that living in captivity among humans is an environment, just like a forest or a desert. The domestic organisms that humans prefer are the ones best fit for living around humans, so they are the ones best fit for their environment. Artificial selection is basically ecological selection, except there is a sentient force driving it (humans).
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

First of all, it's natural selection not selective breeding.

What he described is selective breeding, and it is a type of evolutionary selection.


A species or population has to adapt to its environment as it changes or it migrates. Therefore, the population would either die out or start to change their preferences for mate selection to better adapt their offspring to the environment. Therefore, unless the population or members of the species live in the exact same environment and said environment never changes, your theory is incorrect.


You're only considering evolution in the wild and ignoring the fact that living in captivity among humans is an environment, just like a forest or a desert. The domestic organisms that humans prefer are the ones best fit for living around humans, so they are the ones best fit for their environment. Artificial selection is basically natural selection, except there is a sentient force driving it (humans).



Artificial selection is not a form of natural selection, it's forced breeding. It is a form of selection, in that the mates are selected but natural selection implies that it is the organisms themselves that choose the mates. Hence, the label "artificial" selection. Even in captivity, it is impossible to completely eliminate a trait, even under captivity animals have to adapt to their environments. Humans do have an impact of course but they can't eliminate an entire trait completely from a species.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Artificial selection is not a form of natural selection, it's forced breeding.
It is a form of selection, in that the mates are selected but natural selection implies that it is the organisms themselves that choose the mates. Hence, the label "artificial" selection.

I know that, that's why I said it is a type of evolutionary selection. Natural selection isn't the only type of selection that drives evolution, but it is the most well known and affects most species, which is why people assume that it is the only type of selection.


Even in captivity, it is impossible to completely eliminate a trait, even under captivity animals have to adapt to their environments. Humans do have an impact of course but they can't eliminate an entire trait completely from a species.


I know that, but, just like in the wild, the organisms with unfavorable phenotypes will not be able to reproduce. A fish without gills won't be able to reproduce in the wild, just as a skinny cow who isn't worth much money won't be allowed to reproduce in captivity. Those negative traits won't be eliminated, but they will become a lot less common.
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

First of all, it's natural selection not selective breeding.

What he described is selective breeding, and it is a type of evolutionary selection.


A species or population has to adapt to its environment as it changes or it migrates. Therefore, the population would either die out or start to change their preferences for mate selection to better adapt their offspring to the environment. Therefore, unless the population or members of the species live in the exact same environment and said environment never changes, your theory is incorrect.


You're only considering evolution in the wild and ignoring the fact that living in captivity among humans is an environment, just like a forest or a desert. The domestic organisms that humans prefer are the ones best fit for living around humans, so they are the ones best fit for their environment. Artificial selection is basically natural selection, except there is a sentient force driving it (humans).



Artificial selection is not a form of natural selection, it's forced breeding. It is a form of selection, in that the mates are selected but natural selection implies that it is the organisms themselves that choose the mates. Hence, the label "artificial" selection. Even in captivity, it is impossible to completely eliminate a trait, even under captivity animals have to adapt to their environments. Humans do have an impact of course but they can't eliminate an entire trait completely from a species.





Cuddlebuns wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

Artificial selection is not a form of natural selection, it's forced breeding.
It is a form of selection, in that the mates are selected but natural selection implies that it is the organisms themselves that choose the mates. Hence, the label "artificial" selection.

I know that, that's why I said it is a type of evolutionary selection. Natural selection isn't the only type of selection that drives evolution, but it is the most well known and affects most species, which is why people assume that it is the only type of selection.


Even in captivity, it is impossible to completely eliminate a trait, even under captivity animals have to adapt to their environments. Humans do have an impact of course but they can't eliminate an entire trait completely from a species.


I know that, but, just like in the wild, the organisms with unfavorable phenotypes will not be able to reproduce. A fish without gills won't be able to reproduce in the wild, just as a skinny cow who isn't worth much money won't be allowed to reproduce in captivity. Those negative traits won't be eliminated, but they will become a lot less common.


If you know it then why would you bother reply or were you just looking for a fight. In your reply you gave neither a comment to repute mine nor one to support it. Don't waste my time with semantics.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

If you know it then why would you bother reply or were you just looking for a fight. In your reply you gave neither a comment to repute mine nor one to support it. Don't waste my time with semantics.


I did make comments that refuted your idea that natural selection was the only type of evolutionary selection, and that artifical selection wasn't a type of evolutionary selection. I also tried to counter your assumption that evolutionary selection only occurs in the wild. But I might have read your original response to the OP wrong, if so then it was my fault.
1711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/3/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

If you know it then why would you bother reply or were you just looking for a fight. In your reply you gave neither a comment to repute mine nor one to support it. Don't waste my time with semantics.


I did make comments that refuted your idea that natural selection was the only type of evolutionary selection, and that artifical selection wasn't a type of evolutionary selection. I also tried to counter your assumption that evolutionary selection only occurs in the wild. But I might have read your original response to the OP wrong, if so then it was my fault.


The things in red were things I never said.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/3/09
So then what did you mean by this?:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:
First of all, it's natural selection not selective breeding.



And this sounds like you don't consider living among humans to be an environment:



Completely eradicating a trait would also be detrimental to the species itself. A species or population has to adapt to its environment as it changes or it migrates. Therefore, the population would either die out or start to change their preferences for mate selection to better adapt their offspring to the environment. Therefore, unless the population or members of the species live in the exact same environment and said environment never changes, your theory is incorrect.


But, like I said, I may have read it wrong
20 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/7/10
what i find for evolution is that human beings try to stall it things like diseases keep getting stopped and we created shelters and things like that to make our lives easier lets face it if everyone with cancer died and people continued to live we would eventually evolve into being cancer immune same things with small pox and all those other fatal diseases

if obese people had to run for their lives everyday and died trying genetic obesity would be eliminated
any genetic disease would basically be out evolved eventually and the human race probablly would be alot stronger because of it
2324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / inside my heart
Offline
Posted 3/8/10
i think that if you killed all people with chest hair.... there will still be some left... its because of the recessive traits found in their DNA.....
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/8/10
Selective breeding is part of evolution.. all animals use this wen their mating.. Example. I start with birds. those birds will only mate with other birds of its kind if it has the largest tail feathers, So right their is a example of selective breeding, leading to birds with even larger tail feathers over time. Because to them birds size of your tail feathers is what gets-them-off!!!!

Another example... Humanoid living about 4.6 1/2 million years ago, the ladies would only mate with the monkey men who could carry the most berries. Being that being able to walk on two feet for the longest distance aided in that.. Led to the men who could stand up and walk on two feet for the longest time to be able to mate.. Another example of selective breeding.

Most animals use selective breeding. Some use sparring, some use some time of look to choose their mate.. But their still using the selective breeding, because selective breeding is natural.

(in the immortal words of Spock! Live long and prosper!) In my words (Logic + science owns all fools!)
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/8/10 , edited 3/8/10

mirayon wrote:

i think that if you killed all people with chest hair.... there will still be some left... its because of the recessive traits found in their DNA.....


'Yes just like-some humans are still born with a tail. Or chickens with teeth. It just will be a dormant jean.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.