On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 14:19:07 -0800, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Even if "animal breeding (to get another species)" did or did not work, it
>>would not necessarily "prove" or disprove "that no species can evolve into
>>another" *in the wild*. Animal breeding requires *human* intelligence
>>which nature does not have. Animal breeding is just an *analogy* used by
>>Darwin because of his lack of evidence of natural selection in the wild:
CC>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.
No. Animal breeding works because of *selection* by an *intelligent
human designer*.
Variations come and go in the wild but if an intelligent human designer
spots them, he can save them and breed from them selectively. Many of the
most useful variations to man are monsters which would never be viable in
the wild (eg. maize).
CC>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.
I would like to see Chris' *evidence* that "history suggests that that was
not the case, and that what they did was something very simple". Most of
this happened *pre*-history! It will no doubt turn out this is just the usual
evolutionist assumption that ancient man was a dumbo.
And what's so "simple" about selecting "those animals that seemed to have
more of what they were hoping for, or at least what they found preferable
when it occurred"?
The *minimal* requirements for successful selective breeding would have
to include: a) spotting the slight variation in a characteristic wanted; 2)
mate the plant or animal with another of the same species which also had
the same characteristic; 3) protect the selected plants/animals and their
offspring from breeding with others of the same species which did not have
the desired characteristic (before the advent of ring-lock fencing); 4) avoid
sterility, defects or reversion by not excessively interbreeding (which
implies keeping track of who was related to whom over many generations
and introducing new bloodlines); and 5) being aware of elementary
genetics, such a correlated effects (pleiotropy).
Remember that any relaxation in vigilance at any time, and centuries, if not
millennia, of work could be lost.
CC>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.
See above. I have relatives on my wife's side who are sheep farmers, one of
our best friends is a farmer, and I have lived in three country towns and so
have spent a fair bit of time with farmers on their farms.
If Chris thinks it's simple to spot slight differences in characteristics and
then to protect selected females from randy males, even with modern
fencing, then he should go and talk to an Agricultural Show judge on the
one hand, and to a farmer on the other.
Breeding is highly skilled and unrelenting work!
CC>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?
Well for starters, one "difference" is that human intelligent designers can
bring out of a genome far more variety, far more quickly, and maintain it,
than nature can. One only has to think of domestic dogs, ranging from
Great Danes to Chihuahuas to see that.
This in fact was Darwin's very first point at the beginning of Chapter 1 of
the Origin:
"WHEN we compare the individuals of the same variety or subvariety of
our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes
us is, that they generally differ more from each other than do the
individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. And if we
reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been
cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different
climates and treatment, we are driven to conclude that this great variability
is due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of
life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the
parent-species had been exposed under nature." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin
of Species", [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th
edition, 1928, reprint, p21).
Chris can bet his bottom dollar that if man disappeared, all the many
varieties of domesticated sheep on the Earth today, with their many
textures and colours of wool, would disappear too, back to the same
limited number of textures and colours that existed originally.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Two shafts of criticism struck Darwin more directly than the outside
world was allowed to know. They touched his particular theory that
evolution took place by natural selection, a process analogous to the
artificial selection which plant and animal breeders were practicing with
such great success at that time. The first criticism asserted that Darwin's
thesis was not true; the second, that it was not new. Such criticisms are
raised against all revolutionary hypotheses, but both of these were serious
and well informed." (Darlington C.D., "The Origin of Darwinism",
Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p60)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------