Then you are probably right that we are at an impass here. A name,
artificial or natural, does not answer the question I asked, which was
mathematically or biologically what is the difference between selection
made by artificial means vs. that made by natural means. Surely there must
be something that can be said like, "Artificial selection causes your toes
to fall off and natural selection lets you keep your toes." I see no
difference in a selection mechanism carried out by yo or me. Bob selection
vs. Glenn selection should be able to be described by the same process, as I
would expect beetle selection would also.
>You wrote, "Surely all the thousands of people involved in the selection of
>great milk cows, did not get together and consciously decide that they would
>all chose the same traits." Whether they got together and consciously decide
>what to choose is completely irrelevant.
>
Why? What is the difference in the result if I grow tomatoes in a hot house
and gradually raise the temperature of the room, generation after generation
to 120 deg. F and if the earth's temperature gradually rises raising the
temperature of a texas summer to 120 dg. F? What should I expect to happen
differently?
>You wrote, "Is the apparently future need for plants and animals to be able
>to survive on a hotter planet earth an intentionally chosen goal or is it
>natural selection?" A "hotter planet earth" was not a intentionally chosen
>goal, as you very well know. The answer to your question: natural
>selection.
So given the tomatoes above, what should be the difference in the outcome if
nature does it vs. me raising the greenhouse temperature every successive
season?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm