Animal breeding works because of naturally-occurring variations. The breeder
does *not* decide what variations will be produced by the genes. That is,
animal breeding uses *exactly* the same mechanism as occurs in nature if
evolutionary theory is correct. That mechanism is naturally-occurring
variations, changes, in the genome.
Why is this mechanism used? Because, at least until very recently, we did
not know how to "intelligently design" genes. Apparently Stephen believes
that the primitive people who first began doing animal breeding thousands of
years ago were the intellectual and technological equivalent of his alleged
Intelligent Designer. But, history suggests that that was not the case, and
that what they did was something very simple: They simply selected those
animals that seemed to have more of what they were hoping for, or at least
what they found preferable when it occurred. They were *not* God, nor were
they even intelligent, high-tech aliens setting out to manipulate life on
Earth by reaching into the genomes of animals and making new genes, etc.
In fact, there is no reason to think that they even did it *deliberately* at
least at first, so even Stephen's claim that animal breeding *requires* [my
emphasis] human intelligence is not true. All it required was what was
*already* present: naturally-occurring genetic changes, and *some* sort of
selection by humans (the *intelligence* of it, if any, is irrelevant). Thus,
the bizarre implication of Stephen's that selection by *humans* is
radically different from selection by environment is silly; humans were
simply part of the environment of the animals involved, and humans, unless
someone can prove otherwise, must be assumed to be as natural as anything
else.
So, let me ask: If selection of sheep for more wool is done by human beings
or by cold climate, what's the difference that *makes* a difference as far
as evolutionary theory is concerned?
--Chris C
Now is the time for all good people to come to.