I was watching a show last night called “Decoding dogs”. In that show they discussed an experiment that has been taking place for the last 50 years in Russia. The experiment took wild foxes and bred them. Each successive generation was filtered for either aggressiveness or passiveness towards humans. I think the number was around 1% of the population showed these traits either way.
This has been done for ~50 generations.
What they noticed was not only was these traits altered, but also much of the physical traits also changed thru this breeding.
My question is, at what point, what scientific term/value, dictates when something becomes a “New species”? Is it at such a point where the new generation can no longer procreate with the prior generation or some other marker?
Finally would that be considered evolution, although clearly not “Natural” evolution?
No idea, maybe god wanted 'em to be different. My guess is that this method seeks to speed up the evolutionary or generational progression. Could we call it “forced evolution?”
Scientifically, a “new species” comes about when one group of these foxes cannot successfully procreate with the other. Aside from that, they’re just creating new breeds of foxes.
Also, just about any trait change from generation to generation could be considered “evolutionary.” Whether that trait change is beneficial or detrimental is up to Mother Nature to decide.
The delineation of species is sometimes in dispute. Its not easy.
And yes. If evolution were not true then selective breeding would be impossible. We would never have new breeds. Its human directed selection, not natural selection but its essentially the same thing in a broad dummed down sense.
in short, nature of course usually presents humans with continuous spectra of phenomenon which do not always fit neatly into boxes. So, there are various definitions one can work with, all of them will have grey area cases.
Lions can breed with tigers for instance, and produce fertile offspring. Are they different species? They are what they are.
If evolution were not true then selective breeding would be impossible.
Is it considered “Evolution” if it does not reach the criteria for a new species?
For instance these foxes where displaying significant changes in appearance. Interesting enough they are proposing that these changes, explained as changes that make the species look more “Juvenile” are attached in some way to the trait of being non agressive toward humans. In return we are “More attracted” to these foxes because they are “cute”.
That aside is “Having a rounder face” as a whole generation with all offspring having the same trait considered “Evolution” or is just considered evolution at the “Break point” where procreation and or whatever other criteria are met?
Yes, not all evolutionary changes are obvious or visually apparent.
Think of a fox and every ancestor that fox had that has ever existed back to whatever animal they branched off from. If we lined them all up in order you wouldnt be able to tell one from the other next to it. But if you took huge leaps in the line then the changes would be obvious.
If evolution were not true then selective breeding would be impossible.
Is it considered “Evolution” if it does not reach the criteria for a new species?
it is what it is.
it is one small, or perhaps medium step in the process that created the diversity of life on this planet.
it is not the sum of it, obviously.
nor is it an instance of speciation under most definition, though you could no doubt eventually selectively breed those foxes into a form which would be a distinct species under any definition if you wanted to.
though you could no doubt eventually selectively breed those foxes into a form which would be a distinct species under any definition if you wanted to.
I guess this is what I’m getting at and ask, could you?
First let me state I’m not arguing against evolution, I’m a firm believer. I’m merely trying to garner an idea what the argument might be that it doesn’t exist and or why.
There is zero doubt that we can “Selectively breed”. Is there also zero doubt that we can “Selectively breed” a new species? I’m asking because I don’t know. I can’t think of a case where this has happened…mules maybe?
If the case is that we CAN selectively breed a new species…how could anyone argue that evolution doesn’t exist or doesn’t happen?
at the very least you could breed a dog too small to breed with a wolf and then you fit one definition of new species =)
given though that tigers and lions can still interbreed, I imagine fitting the most strict definition of a distinct species would take a long time, for mammals at least.
though you could no doubt eventually selectively breed those foxes into a form which would be a distinct species under any definition if you wanted to.
I guess this is what I’m getting at and ask, could you?
First let me state I’m not arguing against evolution, I’m a firm believer. I’m merely trying to garner an idea what the argument might be that it doesn’t exist and or why.
There is zero doubt that we can “Selectively breed”. Is there also zero doubt that we can “Selectively breed” a new species? I’m asking because I don’t know. I can’t think of a case where this has happened…mules maybe?
If the case is that we CAN selectively breed a new species…how could anyone argue that evolution doesn’t exist or doesn’t happen?
also to answer the question of “how could someone deny evolution” when we can create new species for selective breeding:
I’ve had that conversation, probably 23 times, and it comes from the strong belief that artificial selection is distinctly different than natural selection in some important way which would prevent evolution from working.
I’ve not yet clearly understood why that would be so.
in short, nature of course usually presents humans with continuous spectra of phenomenon which do not always fit neatly into boxes. So, there are various definitions one can work with, all of them will have grey area cases.
Lions can breed with tigers for instance, and produce fertile offspring. Are they different species? They are what they are.
Of course the Liger is different! They are the most magical of animals!
