The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Evolving a new function via gene duplication and divergence

Posted 12 November 2012 by Richard B. Hoppe

Bjørn Østman at Pleiotropy describes new research in Science that shows how duplicated genes can evolve to perform new functions. It presents
... a new model/mechanism by which duplicated genes can retain the selection pressure to not succumb to deleterious mutations. They call it the innovation-amplification-divergene model (IAD).
Basically,
IAD works like this: A gene initially has one function only (A). Then some genetic changes makes it also have a new function, b, which at first is not of too great importance. Then some environmental change favors the gene variants with the minor b-function (the innovation stage). This is then followed by duplication of the gene, such that there are now more than one copy that carries out A and b (the amplification stage). At this stage there is selection for more b, and at some point genetic changes in one of the copies results in a gene that is better at the new function, B. At this point, selection for the genes that do both A and b is relaxed, because the new gene (blue) carries out the new function. The original gene then loses the b function, and we are left with two distinct genes.
Michael Behe, of course, scoffs. Because the researchers did some manipulations that created conditions favorable to the evolution of the new function, Behe claims that
Needless to say, this ain't how unaided nature works -- unless nature is guiding events toward a goal.
Shucks. I guess every experimental manipulation ever performed has been an invalid method of studying some process. But as a PT crew member pointed out on the back channel, "this kind of shit happens all the time in nature." See, for example, Gene duplication and the adaptive evolution of a classic genetic switch or Escape from adaptive conflict after duplication in an anthocyanin pathway gene.

86 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 12 November 2012

Well see, you have to do experiments if evolution is going to be science (never mind that they never do a sound test for "design"), but everything's thrown off if you actually use controls and variables. Because, uh, that's using your brain--I guess we'd have to hire brainless IDiots to do it all, and since nothing would make sense that way,...

Of course they don't care about experiments, they're doing religion. Religion doesn't need experiments because it's not in doubt (or they'd be sinning) in their minds.

Glen Davidson

Chuck Morrison · 12 November 2012

You see, there is always an intelligent designer behind experiments. Therefore, all experiments prove an intelligent designer.

QED.

mandrellian · 12 November 2012

Cue: incoherent medieval troll appearance and subsequent Wall banishment in 3, 2 ...

Chris Lawson · 13 November 2012

Funny. Just this morning on the previous thread I was saying that even if Behe's test of evolution was demonstrated in the laboratory, Behe would dismiss the evidence because it was not natural...and then -- BING! -- right on cue...

DS · 13 November 2012

Not only did the new function evolve, but it did so in just three thousand generations. A dramatic demonstration of the power of gene duplication in the evolution of novel traits. And of course, there is absolutely no reason why the same mechanism couldn't work for more complex traits as well.

It;s almost as if the entire scientific community is conspiring to make Behe look bad. Or maybe he just always chooses the wrong side of every issue.

DS · 13 November 2012

Not only did the new function evolve, but it did so in just three thousand generations. A dramatic demonstration of the importance of gene duplication in the evolution of novel traits. Of course, the same mechanism would work for more complex traits as well.

It's almost as if the entire scientific community is conspiring to make Behe look bad. Or maybe he just chooses the wrong side of every issue.

Kevin B · 13 November 2012

DS said: Not only did the new function evolve, but it did so in just three thousand generations. A dramatic demonstration of the importance of gene duplication in the evolution of novel traits. Of course, the same mechanism would work for more complex traits as well. It's almost as if the entire scientific community is conspiring to make Behe look bad. Or maybe he just chooses the wrong side of every issue.
You can say that again. Oh, you did. :) Behe appears to have reached the point of quarreling with the fundamental methods of scientific research. I hope that the next time he turns up as an expert witness, he gets skewered with this.
Opposing counsel asks: Dr Behe, how would you demonstrate that you actually are, rather than merely claim to be, a scientist?

DS · 13 November 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

parictis · 13 November 2012

Moo Moo, I read the entire paper. And I learned that there is a model that explains the origin of new gene function without relaxed selection, which is important to avoid the production of pseudogenes. They also verified the model histidine/tryptophan specialization in using Salmonella. More here.

apokryltaros · 13 November 2012

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

apokryltaros · 13 November 2012

parictis said: Moo Moo, I read the entire paper. And I learned that there is a model that explains the origin of new gene function without relaxed selection, which is important to avoid the production of pseudogenes. They also verified the model histidine/tryptophan specialization in using Salmonella. More here.
In other words, the paper repeatedly proves that Behe is wrong on, many, many, many levels in addition to his laughable dismissal of the paper, and inane remark about nature being goal-oriented.

j. biggs · 13 November 2012

DS said: Not only did the new function evolve, but it did so in just three thousand generations. A dramatic demonstration of the power of gene duplication in the evolution of novel traits. And of course, there is absolutely no reason why the same mechanism couldn't work for more complex traits as well. It;s almost as if the entire scientific community is conspiring to make Behe look bad. Or maybe he just always chooses the wrong side of every issue.
It doesn't count unless the experiment produces a bacterial flagellum from scratch. ;-)

ogremk5 · 13 November 2012

I've had the "intelligent design" of an experiment discussion with IDiots before. They really don't have a clue how to do science.

First, if the answer was known by the experimental designer, then there wouldn't be a lot of point in doing the experiment would there.

Second, even well designed experiments can produce unexpected data. If this wasn't the case, then every casino game engineer would be a multi-billionaire. They designed the roulette wheel, therefore, they know what every spin will be right?

Third, experiments are designed to reduce the uncertainty and ambiguity of the experiment. Throwing a bunch of random chemicals and adding random amounts of outside influences (water, electricity, heat, etc) may produce something interesting, but how and why? A well designed experiment reduces the uncertain part to one variable that is, in turn, controlled by one independent variable. If you experiment with a pendulum, you don't vary the length of the string, the mass of the bob, and the height you release it from and then try to figure out the difference in period and or the difference in g in the area. No, you intelligently change on aspect a time, in order to determine that aspect's influence on one and only one other aspect (length of string and period, for example).

Experiments that are not intelligently designed are useless. However, as shown, this does not mean that all experiments are evidence of intelligent design in the rest of the universe. It is evidence that humans are intelligent and can design a valid experiment that produces useful, unambiguous, and certain results. That's all.

If one wants to extrapolate this concept to Intelligent Design of the universe and every living thing in it, the one should first find the Intelligence that designed everything and ask that Intelligence why they did such a piss-poor job in designing the experiment that is our universe.

Starbuck · 13 November 2012

I like pigliucci's analogy. Experiments are to evolving life as a telescope is to galaxies and stars.

DS · 13 November 2012

Starbuck said: I like pigliucci's analogy. Experiments are to evolving life as a telescope is to galaxies and stars.
Apt analogy. This particular experiment demonstrates the importance of gene duplication in evolution, with or without selective constraints. Duplicated genes allow for neofunctionalization, even when ancestral functions are retained. Darwin would have been fascinated by these types of experiments.

Starbuck · 13 November 2012

You'll never hear a creationist say, telescopes are intelligently designed, therefore those galaxies are an artifactual byproduct of the designed telescope!

Rando · 13 November 2012

ogremk5 said: I've had the "intelligent design" of an experiment discussion with IDiots before. They really don't have a clue how to do science. First, if the answer was known by the experimental designer, then there wouldn't be a lot of point in doing the experiment would there. Second, even well designed experiments can produce unexpected data. If this wasn't the case, then every casino game engineer would be a multi-billionaire. They designed the roulette wheel, therefore, they know what every spin will be right? Third, experiments are designed to reduce the uncertainty and ambiguity of the experiment. Throwing a bunch of random chemicals and adding random amounts of outside influences (water, electricity, heat, etc) may produce something interesting, but how and why? A well designed experiment reduces the uncertain part to one variable that is, in turn, controlled by one independent variable. If you experiment with a pendulum, you don't vary the length of the string, the mass of the bob, and the height you release it from and then try to figure out the difference in period and or the difference in g in the area. No, you intelligently change on aspect a time, in order to determine that aspect's influence on one and only one other aspect (length of string and period, for example). Experiments that are not intelligently designed are useless. However, as shown, this does not mean that all experiments are evidence of intelligent design in the rest of the universe. It is evidence that humans are intelligent and can design a valid experiment that produces useful, unambiguous, and certain results. That's all. If one wants to extrapolate this concept to Intelligent Design of the universe and every living thing in it, the one should first find the Intelligence that designed everything and ask that Intelligence why they did such a piss-poor job in designing the experiment that is our universe.
The problem with experiments is they could also prove them wrong. Need I remind you of the Wistar Incident? http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html

raven · 13 November 2012

I’ve had the “intelligent design” of an experiment discussion with IDiots before. They really don’t have a clue how to do science.
Science is experimental and observational. If we never did experiments, we would still be in the stone age. That might work for creationists but the rest of us have better ways of living.

raven · 13 November 2012

Behe denying reality some more: Needless to say, this ain’t how unaided nature works – unless nature is guiding events toward a goal.
Nature is always guiding events toward a goal. Natural selection, survival of the fittess, differential reproduction, however you want to term it. Biologically, our goal is to successfully reproduce better than competing genomes.

harold · 13 November 2012

Moo Moo -

Let's take it one step at a time.

Can gene duplication occur? Simple yes/no question. Answer this one question.

Rolf Aalberg · 14 November 2012

harold said: Moo Moo - Let's take it one step at a time. Can gene duplication occur? Simple yes/no question. Answer this one question.
Who wants to go swimming in H2SO?

Rolf Aalberg · 14 November 2012

I was too cryptic; what I meant was a metaphor for what it would be like for people like Moo Moo to take the road you would lead them down.

ogremk5 · 14 November 2012

Moo Moo said: I may not understand the precise details of the science
Well, there's your problem right there. Yet, you don't let that stop you from criticizing the work of people who do understand the precise details of science. Are you actually interested in learning this stuff? What would be required (in your opinion) to show you that you are fundamentally mistaken? In other words, do you plan to learn and understand the "precise details of science" and become an advocate for learning or do you plan to continue spewing forth your arrogant ignorance no matter what anyone else says?

DS · 14 November 2012

Joe always makes the same mistake. He always thinks that he is more qualified to judge the experimental results than the real scientists who actually performed the research.. He is also obsesses with demanding that everyone read the entire paper, as if reading the abstract was somehow insufficient. At least he isn't pretending to be a scientist any more. Apparently he has somehow obtained a mail order law certificate and is now calling himself a lawyer. Of course he isn't any more a lawyer than he is a scientist.

His criticism of the research are of course completely invalid. Once again, the authors, editors and reviewers all disagree with him. But he doesn't care. He just goes merrily on his way making ignorant claims and trying to denigrate that which he doesn't understand. At the end of the day all he has is his own incredulity, which is of course completely worthless.

We have known about the importance of gene duplication for forty years now. Some people just can't seem to get it through their heads. The telescope didn't make the stars, it simply reveals them to us, just like this experiment.

eric · 14 November 2012

Moo Moo said: This is an important feat of protein engineering but not really of undirected evolution.
Its protein engineering the same way dog breeding is protein engineering. You control the conditions to see what naturally happens under those conditions. If you think the description of the experiment implies that scientists took teeny tiny tweezers and put together a novel gene - or something equivalent - then your reading comprehension is really poor. From your earlier post:
At the end of the day, the “new genes” appear only to display an improved pre-existing chemical activity or even the loss of pre-existing activity that was present in the parental gene.
Just so we're clear, then, you think that a biological system which changes from [gene A performs function 1 and 2], through [gene A duplicates to B, both A and B perform function 1 and 2] to [gene A performs function 1, gene B performs function 2] is not evolving in the sense biologists use the term evolution?

ogremk5 · 14 November 2012

Moo Moo said:
ogremk5 said:
Moo Moo said: I may not understand the precise details of the science
Well, there's your problem right there. Yet, you don't let that stop you from criticizing the work of people who do understand the precise details of science. Are you actually interested in learning this stuff? What would be required (in your opinion) to show you that you are fundamentally mistaken? In other words, do you plan to learn and understand the "precise details of science" and become an advocate for learning or do you plan to continue spewing forth your arrogant ignorance no matter what anyone else says?
I am qualified to know when someone is trying to put a spin on something. In this case, the experiment was directed by the scientists who selected and reconfigured mutants in order to achieve a modification in two of the pre-existing activities of the original gene. This is an important feat of protein engineering but not really of undirected evolution.
If you don't understand science, then how can you possibly judge whether there is "spin" or anything else? Do you even understand the purpose of the paper in question? Do you even understand what evolution is? I haven't seen you explain it in your own words yet, so there's no way to judge that you even have the basics needed to begin to understand this. Would appreciate me coming into your office (presuming you are actually a lawyer) and explaining to you have every case you are working is fundamentally flawed? Of course you wouldn't. You'd kick me out of your office in a heartbeat. But you think that doesn't apply to you. And you didn't answer my questions. Are you actually interested in learning this stuff? What would be required (in your opinion) to show you that you are fundamentally mistaken? In other words, do you plan to learn and understand the “precise details of science” and become an advocate for learning or do you plan to continue spewing forth your arrogant ignorance no matter what anyone else says?

j. biggs · 14 November 2012

Moo Moo said: I may not understand the precise details of the science but, having read the paper, the following things are quite revealing:
To experimentally test the IAD model, we examined a histidine biosynthetic enzyme (HisA),and through continuous selection we created, by duplication and divergence, a new gene that catalyzes a step in tryptophan synthesis.
It seems a bit odd that an experiment that purportedly demonstrates evolution involves the researchers creating a new gene, albeit through mutational means.
You are using word games to skirt around the fact that Nasvall et. al. created a new gene using the known evolutionary mechanism of gene duplication. If evolution of genes via gene duplication didn't work the experiment would have failed.
In a strain lacking trpF, we selected a spontaneous hisA mutant of Salmonella enterica that maintained its original function (HisA).......We placed this bifunctional parental gene (dup13-15, D10G) under the control of a constitutive promoter that cotranscribed a yellow fluorescent protein ( yfp) gene.
It seems that the researchers directed and guided their experiment towards a goal by selecting various mutants and reconfiguring them to some extent.
Yeah it does seem that way doesn't it. That is because that's what experiments do. The part you missed is that they used aspects evolutionary theory to design their experiment. Selection is selection whether artificial or natural. Natural selection and artificial selection aren't random and the mutations that happened to the duplicated gene in this experiment were just as random as the mutations that occur in nature. This experiment just verifies how scientists think natural selection and mutation operate on duplicated genes. i.e that one gene that performs two functions suboptimally can become two genes that perform only one function each, optimally.
The evolved genes fell into three classes: (i) specialized genes with strongly improved HisA activity and loss of TrpF activity, (ii) specialized genes with strongly improved TrpF activity and loss of HisA activity, and (iii) generalist genes whose encoded enzyme showed a moderate increase in both activities
At the end of the day, the "new genes" appear only to display an improved pre-existing chemical activity or even the loss of pre-existing activity that was present in the parental gene.
You seem to think that these results aren't what we expected. They were exactly what was expected. What we don't expect is entire functioning organisms or even genes for that matter created from dirt or clay. That is never observed, ever.

DS · 14 November 2012

ogremk5 said: And you didn't answer my questions. Are you actually interested in learning this stuff? What would be required (in your opinion) to show you that you are fundamentally mistaken? In other words, do you plan to learn and understand the “precise details of science” and become an advocate for learning or do you plan to continue spewing forth your arrogant ignorance no matter what anyone else says?
Joe doesn't answer questions. I asked him twenty seven different questions before I realized who I was dealing with, He didn't answer any of them. Now in a court of law you could make him answer questions, but otherwise he'll just go on ignoring them and expecting everyone to answer his stupid questions anyway. He knows that if he tries to answer he will be revealed as the ignorant science hating bigot that he is. Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think that this guy is really bozo Joe? He just doesn't have the balls to admit it.

eric · 14 November 2012

Moo Moo said:
eric said: Its protein engineering the same way dog breeding is protein engineering. You control the conditions to see what naturally happens under those conditions.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't dog breeding a form of artificial selection rather than natural selection?
Yup, but as Darwin noted, artificial selection provides insight into what nature can do without humans.
I did read the paper and they do appear to have screened the natural mutants, and to have done other things with them as well.
Do you understand that that is like deciding which dogs go in the pen, and not like taking teeny tiny tweezers and directly engineering a gene?
Just so we're clear, then, you think that a biological system which changes from [gene A performs function 1 and 2], through [gene A duplicates to B, both A and B perform function 1 and 2] to [gene A performs function 1, gene B performs function 2] is not evolving in the sense biologists use the term evolution?
As I understand it, the original gene had two activities and the experiment produced duplicates with modified levels of activity. What you describe appears to be a division of labor rather than any innovation which is the central theme of the paper.
It appears you agree that such an evolution in gene function is allowed by nature, you just don't want to say that outright.

W. H. Heydt · 14 November 2012

Moo Moo said: I am qualified to know when someone is trying to put a spin on something. In this case, the experiment was directed by the scientists who selected and reconfigured mutants in order to achieve a modification in two of the pre-existing activities of the original gene. This is an important feat of protein engineering but not really of undirected evolution.
Not really. You're making one of the same mistakes Phillip Johnson makes. You are assuming that common words and constructs mean in someone elses specialty mean the same as they do in your specialty. As is frequently mentioned on Groklaw, where the bloggers *do* know the law, it is pointed out that the law uses common words in ways that don't match up with common usage. Likewise, scientific papers have a style of discourse that doesn't match common usage. You are assuming that, because you are familiar with legal usage, that you are also familiar with scientific usage. It simply isn't true.

ksplawn · 14 November 2012

Moo Moo, why do you feel that evolution should be singled out among the sciences and put on hold when it comes to teaching it in public schools?

This is getting old, PTers. How many trolls are we going to have that just skip from thread to thread, refusing to answer direct and simple questions?

Flint · 14 November 2012

Sounds to me very much like Joe is a lawyer, because what lawyers do for a living, and what they are paid to do, is spin everything. To a True Lawyer, there's no such thing as empirical truth, there is ONLY spin, preference, positioning, and the like. There is never the "whole truth", only the half they are paid to make LOOK like the whole truth.

And this is done with very clear, specific concrete goals in mind. The last thing a criminal lawyer wants to hear is a confession from his client. He is not being paid to find out whodunnit, he's being paid to get his guy off. If he KNOWS his guy did it, and can convince a jury otherwise, he wins.

Someone like that will see spin everywhere. "Evolutionists" are nothing more than the lawyers for the opposition, spinning just as hard as he is. What matters isn't the biology itself, what matters is convincing the court of public opinion that your side is correct. Whether or not it IS correct is perhaps interesting, but not relevant.

apokryltaros · 14 November 2012

Moo Moo said:
eric said: Its protein engineering the same way dog breeding is protein engineering. You control the conditions to see what naturally happens under those conditions.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't dog breeding a form of artificial selection rather than natural selection?
Artificial selection is where humans deliberately direct and control the evolution of captive populations as per the breeders' needs and or aesthetic desires. Or are you trying to imply that artificial selection is like Intelligent Design, in that it is some how, magically a supernatural phenomenon?
Just so we're clear, then, you think that a biological system which changes from [gene A performs function 1 and 2], through [gene A duplicates to B, both A and B perform function 1 and 2] to [gene A performs function 1, gene B performs function 2] is not evolving in the sense biologists use the term evolution?
As I understand it, the original gene had two activities and the experiment produced duplicates with modified levels of activity. What you describe appears to be a division of labor rather than any innovation which is the central theme of the paper.
The copy of the original had its activity modified through mutations, so that a division of labor is shared between the original and its copy: how is that not an innovation? Are we to assume that you think that a novel mutation needs to give the organism laser vision or retractable adamantium claws?

Richard B. Hoppe · 14 November 2012

I'm currently not able to moderate here in real time. I'll say that while Joe has been somewhat less disruptive than he usually is, it's getting out on the edge now. I leave the comments because they've elicited some informative responses, but he's just about worn out his welcome in this thread.

Richard B. Hoppe · 14 November 2012

And now we've decided to disable Moo Moo's ability to comment due to violation of our usage rules.

DS · 14 November 2012

Richard B. Hoppe said: And now we've decided to disable Moo Moo's ability to comment due to violation of our usage rules.
Thank you Richard. Please try to make sure that the ban is permanent to the best of our abilities to make it so. Joe is a self proclaimed violent sociopath. He should never be allowed to post on this site again, under any name.

Karen S. · 14 November 2012

You see, there is always an intelligent designer behind experiments. Therefore, all experiments prove an intelligent designer.
Ah yes, but if you want to see what nature alone can do, you somehow need to control for intelligent designers, assuming they are still at large. (At Dover, Behe agreed that the designer might not be around any more.) What makes it especially tricky is that nobody is allowed to ask questions about the intelligent designer.

Carl Drews · 14 November 2012

Just to review - the Science paper "Real-Time Evolution of New Genes by Innovation, Amplification, and Divergence" demonstrates the addition of new genetic information, right? New, useful, and functional genetic information? There is no way Ken Ham can crawl out of this one?

I can always use more good scientific references for my site.

DS · 14 November 2012

Carl Drews said: Just to review - the Science paper "Real-Time Evolution of New Genes by Innovation, Amplification, and Divergence" demonstrates the addition of new genetic information, right? New, useful, and functional genetic information? There is no way Ken Ham can crawl out of this one? I can always use more good scientific references for my site.
Absolutely. It's just one of many papers that report the occurrence of spontaneous mutations that are beneficial in a given environment and increase in frequency. This particular paper also provides evidence for a proposed mechanism that includes gene duplication and the production of new genes for two functions that previously existed in a single gene. This explains how gene copies can survive long enough to take on another function without becoming inactive pseudogenes.

harold · 14 November 2012

Apparently it actually was Joe.

Anyway, any other creationist is welcome to answer my simple question - does gene duplication happen, yes or no?

Also, "artificial" section IS natural selection.

In fact, all "artificial" products ARE non-supernatural.

The term natural is used colloquially to contrast products, often considered superior, which use more directly biological ingredients, to other types of products.

E.g. a 100% cotton shirt may be deemed more "natural" than a shirt containing some polyester fibers. But in fact, they are both "natural" products, as opposed to "miraculous", "divine", or "supernatural" products.

When fox behavior selects for faster rabbits, that is natural selection. When human behavior selects for cows that give more milk, that is natural selection. It is true that we select for the result we want - in this example - and foxes select for a result they don't want - in this example. It's still all selection, and it's still all natural.

As has been noted, domestication can be thought of as symbiosis or commensalism, rather than predation. That is true, but it is still natural selection. The behavior of one species leads to the selection for traits in another species.

Rando · 14 November 2012

Carl Drews said: Just to review - the Science paper "Real-Time Evolution of New Genes by Innovation, Amplification, and Divergence" demonstrates the addition of new genetic information, right? New, useful, and functional genetic information? There is no way Ken Ham can crawl out of this one? I can always use more good scientific references for my site.
You my friend, underestimate creationists. Ken Ham will do what he always does when science proves him wrong, ignore it. Read the statement of Faith on their website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." That's what they do. If reality conflicts with their beliefs, than reality is wrong! And just like Moo Moo Joe demonstrated, their minds are closed and they have no sense of intellectual honesty.

Karen S. · 14 November 2012

When human behavior selects for cows that give more milk, that is natural selection.
Would that not be called artificial selection? (but still "natural" as opposed to supernatural)

Just Bob · 14 November 2012

harold said: It is true that we select for the result we want...
Except when we select for what we DON'T want: weeds resistant to herbicide; insects resistant to pesticide; rats resistant to poison; streptococcus resistant to damn near everything. Too often we're like the fox. You'd think we'd know better.

harold · 14 November 2012

Just Bob said:
harold said: It is true that we select for the result we want...
Except when we select for what we DON'T want: weeds resistant to herbicide; insects resistant to pesticide; rats resistant to poison; streptococcus resistant to damn near everything. Too often we're like the fox. You'd think we'd know better.
That is, of course, why I said "in this example" :)
Would that not be called artificial selection? (but still “natural” as opposed to supernatural)
Yes, of course, it's both artificial and natural. "Artificial" and "natural" are opposites only when one is using colloquial language to talk about orange flavoring or textile fabric or the like. However, domestic animal/plant/yeast/lactobacillus breeding, a.k.a. "artificial selection", is a type of natural selection. It's worth noting this, because although brainwashed ID/creationists probably literally can't change, at least not in the short term, third party observers can benefit by seeing how wrong their arguments are. A standard creationist argument is to try to deny any example of evolution that has any connection to human activity. It's worthwhile to point out that it's still evolution, still selection, and still natural.

Chris Lawson · 14 November 2012

The only difference between "natural" and "artificial" selection is that in the latter, breeders choose some of the selection pressures. Even then, the underlying evolutionary forces are mostly natural. There are still failed pregnancies and fatal congenital malformations that have nothing to do with human intervention, plus unintended consequences of breeding (e.g. hip dysplasia in dogs). Claiming that "artificial" selection is completely unrelated to natural selection is like claiming that beer brewing has nothing in common with natural fermentation.

Henry J · 14 November 2012

Except when we select for what we DON’T want: weeds resistant to herbicide; insects resistant to pesticide; rats resistant to poison; streptococcus resistant to damn near everything. Too often we’re like the fox. You’d think we’d know better.

To that I'll add: flies getting more evasive when somebody gets up to go get a swatter. Of course, it could be a coincidence that the flies that came into the house when I was growing up were a lot easier to swat than the flies that I met in later years. After all, that's anecdotal, i.e., it isn't a controlled study of the subject. Henry

apokryltaros · 14 November 2012

Henry J said:

Except when we select for what we DON’T want: weeds resistant to herbicide; insects resistant to pesticide; rats resistant to poison; streptococcus resistant to damn near everything. Too often we’re like the fox. You’d think we’d know better.

To that I'll add: flies getting more evasive when somebody gets up to go get a swatter. Of course, it could be a coincidence that the flies that came into the house when I was growing up were a lot easier to swat than the flies that I met in later years. After all, that's anecdotal, i.e., it isn't a controlled study of the subject. Henry
Would that be a behavioral trait, rather than a genetic trait? I recently read that in many parts of the US, rattlesnakes have become more hesitant to rattle, as people have shot and killed those that rattle readily.

MichaelJ · 15 November 2012

Henry J said:

Except when we select for what we DON’T want: weeds resistant to herbicide; insects resistant to pesticide; rats resistant to poison; streptococcus resistant to damn near everything. Too often we’re like the fox. You’d think we’d know better.

To that I'll add: flies getting more evasive when somebody gets up to go get a swatter. Of course, it could be a coincidence that the flies that came into the house when I was growing up were a lot easier to swat than the flies that I met in later years. After all, that's anecdotal, i.e., it isn't a controlled study of the subject. Henry
Or you are just getting older and slower

TomS · 15 November 2012

Chuck Morrison said: You see, there is always an intelligent designer behind experiments. Therefore, all experiments prove an intelligent designer. QED.
But no experiment has ever produced a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. I think it is safe to say that no experiment ever will violate those laws. So we have an example, even though it is hypothetical, of something which is not intelligently designed: A process which violates the laws of thermodynamics.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 15 November 2012

harold said:
Just Bob said:
harold said: It is true that we select for the result we want...
Except when we select for what we DON'T want: weeds resistant to herbicide; insects resistant to pesticide; rats resistant to poison; streptococcus resistant to damn near everything. Too often we're like the fox. You'd think we'd know better.
That is, of course, why I said "in this example" :)
Would that not be called artificial selection? (but still “natural” as opposed to supernatural)
Yes, of course, it's both artificial and natural. "Artificial" and "natural" are opposites only when one is using colloquial language to talk about orange flavoring or textile fabric or the like. However, domestic animal/plant/yeast/lactobacillus breeding, a.k.a. "artificial selection", is a type of natural selection. It's worth noting this, because although brainwashed ID/creationists probably literally can't change, at least not in the short term, third party observers can benefit by seeing how wrong their arguments are. A standard creationist argument is to try to deny any example of evolution that has any connection to human activity. It's worthwhile to point out that it's still evolution, still selection, and still natural.
ID/Creationsists intentionally conflate the terms in order to decieve as noted above "natural" is the opposite of "artificial", "natural" is also the opposite of "supernatural"/ "magic" this conflation is the CORE of the creationist/ID 'arguement': if humans make things = artificial, nature is "made" by supernatural.. all they have is word games and deciet 'right' is the opposite of 'wrong' 'right' is also the opposite of 'left' context MATTERS

raven · 15 November 2012

When human behavior selects for cows that give more milk, that is natural selection. Would that not be called artificial selection? (but still “natural” as opposed to supernatural)
There really isn't any difference between natural and artificial selection. 1. If I spray lab reared insects with DTT (for example), and select out DTT resistant insects, that is artificial selection. 2. If I spray a field of corn with DTT and select out the same insect type with DTT, that is natural selection. So what is the difference? Nothing. We are part of nature and with 7 billion Hi Tech humans, have a huge impact on the planetary biosphere. More and more, it seems that people are dropping the distinction between natural and artificial selection because it doesn't explain or add anything new.

DS · 15 November 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: 'right' is the opposite of 'wrong' 'right' is also the opposite of 'left' context MATTERS
Precisely. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do. Think about it.

Rando · 15 November 2012

DS said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: 'right' is the opposite of 'wrong' 'right' is also the opposite of 'left' context MATTERS
Precisely. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do. Think about it.
http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot He'll be here all week folks, be sure to tip your waitress.

Henry J · 15 November 2012

apokryltaros: Would that be a behavioral trait, rather than a genetic trait? I recently read that in many parts of the US, rattlesnakes have become more hesitant to rattle, as people have shot and killed those that rattle readily.

Certainly it's behavior, but is it a tendency that can be inherited? I would guess so, since I doubt that any individual flies learn to be jumpy when somebody leaves the room and comes back a minute later. ----

MichaelJ: Or you are just getting older and slower

Yeah, but that's not relevant here, since I was twenty something (or maybe teen) when I noticed it. ----

‘right’ is the opposite of ‘wrong’ ‘right’ is also the opposite of ‘left’ context MATTERS

And it's also more than acute and less than obtuse! Henry

stevaroni · 15 November 2012

raven said: There really isn’t any difference between natural and artificial selection. 1. If I spray lab reared insects with DTT (for example), and select out DTT resistant insects, that is artificial selection. 2. If I spray a field of corn with DTT and select out the same insect type with DTT, that is natural selection. So what is the difference? Nothing.
Well, since you've typically controlled your sample groups more carefully, and removed a myriad of external variables at work in a large corn field, your data is probably better and your conclusions more definitive.

Mike Elzinga · 16 November 2012

Henry J said: To that I'll add: flies getting more evasive when somebody gets up to go get a swatter. Of course, it could be a coincidence that the flies that came into the house when I was growing up were a lot easier to swat than the flies that I met in later years. After all, that's anecdotal, i.e., it isn't a controlled study of the subject. Henry
Hah; time flies.

harold · 16 November 2012

stevaroni said:
raven said: There really isn’t any difference between natural and artificial selection. 1. If I spray lab reared insects with DTT (for example), and select out DTT resistant insects, that is artificial selection. 2. If I spray a field of corn with DTT and select out the same insect type with DTT, that is natural selection. So what is the difference? Nothing.
Well, since you've typically controlled your sample groups more carefully, and removed a myriad of external variables at work in a large corn field, your data is probably better and your conclusions more definitive.
This comment is intended as a friendly extension of the discussion... Raven: If I pour orange juice into a glass, or if I pour orange juice into a mug, it's still orange juice. Stevaroni: The glass is made of transparent glass and has no handle, but the mug is made of opaque ceramic and has a handle. Yeah, but it's still orange juice. As "masked panda 404b" said -
ID/Creationsists intentionally conflate the terms in order to decieve as noted above “natural” is the opposite of “artificial”, “natural” is also the opposite of “supernatural”/ “magic” this conflation is the CORE of the creationist/ID ‘arguement’: if humans make things = artificial, nature is “made” by supernatural.. all they have is word games and deciet ‘right’ is the opposite of ‘wrong’ ‘right’ is also the opposite of ‘left’ context MATTERS
Absolutely no-one here is saying that we can't distinguish between humans brewers selecting for a yeast strain, versus a yeast strain being selected for some other way, etc. Raven is not saying that a lab experiment is 100% the same as something else in every detail. The point is that it's still natural selection in both cases. The creationist word game of implying that human activity isn't "natural" - a childish switch between two different meanings of "natural" - is silly. Darwin discussed "artificial selection" because he knew it was an example of naturally-occurring selection, with no magical intervention needed.

Paul Burnett · 16 November 2012

Mike Elzinga said: Hah; time flies.
Challenge sentence for translation programs: "Fruit flies like bananas; time flies like an arrow."

DS · 16 November 2012

The way I like to look at it is this. Laboratory experiments tell us nothing about what actually happened in nature, but they tell us a lot about what can happen in nature, given the right conditions.

Creationists like to try to deny this. They won't accept laboratory experiments because they are "unnatural" and they won't accept examples from nature because they are "unobserved" or "uncontrolled". Basically, they ain't gonna believe nothin they don't wanna and there's nothin you can do about it.

The best approach is to show the concordance between laboratory experiments and observations in nature. Show that the laboratory results are consistent with the hypothesis that explain the observations from nature. Show that the model can be used to accurately predict the results from both laboratory experiments and nature. That's what this paper does. IT test the predictions of a hypothesis and finds that the results are consistent with the hypothesis. It doesn't demonstrate that this is the only mechanism, but it is a possible mechanism. And it explain some observations from nature.

Of course creationists won't be convinced, but who cares? At that point they are exposed as the biased science deniers that they are.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 November 2012

raven said:
When human behavior selects for cows that give more milk, that is natural selection. Would that not be called artificial selection? (but still “natural” as opposed to supernatural)
There really isn't any difference between natural and artificial selection. 1. If I spray lab reared insects with DTT (for example), and select out DTT resistant insects, that is artificial selection. 2. If I spray a field of corn with DTT and select out the same insect type with DTT, that is natural selection. So what is the difference? Nothing.
But the first one isn't artificial selection as it's normally understood, rather it's an experiment in natural selection. Selecting the breeding organisms for our own benefit is traditionally what artificial selection is understood to be. By the time you're just experimenting in the lab with DDT, antibiotics, or what-not, it's no longer artificial selection (or it is artificial selection by broadening its meaning into near-meaninglessness)--the creationists are just wrong again, if not deliberately lying. The only thing artificial about experiments in natural selection is the artificiality of the environment (controlling conditions), not the response. In other words, artifice is used in breeding up organisms for our own purposes, while experiments in natural selection deliberately avoid such artifice, instead allowing the conditions that were set up to do the selection, mimicking how the environment "selects" in the wild. Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 November 2012

We should perhaps talk of 'artificial natural selection' or some such thing when we simply create the conditions that select for certain traits that we want (when it's not just experimenting with "natural selection," that is).

So that if I'm trying to create an antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria simply by growing those bacteria in increasing quantities of that antibiotic--and not selecting the reproducers by artifice--that would be artificial natural selection.

Glen Davidson

ogremk5 · 16 November 2012

or just "selection"

harold · 16 November 2012

It's really not complicated. "Artificial selection", which is to all extents and purposes a needlessly fancy term for "breeding", is a type of natural selection.

Can it be distinguished from other types of natural selection? Yes, it usually can. And walnuts can usually be distinguished from other types of tree nuts, but they're still tree nuts.

Creationists try to discount many otherwise undeniable examples of evolution through genetic diversity and selection, by pretending that "artificial selection" is in some way unnatural or magical.

Creationists themselves can't be changed but their slogans do confuse well-meaning third parties. For the benefit of third parties, it helps to clarify things.

Human breeding of domestic animals and plants is a uniqute type of evolution, but it's still evolution, and the selection involved is still natural.

W. H. Heydt · 16 November 2012

Paul Burnett said: Challenge sentence for translation programs: "Fruit flies like bananas; time flies like an arrow."
My wife (her degree is in Linguistics) cites that line as a matter of supersegmentals. The "classic" computer translation anecdotes are: English--> Russian--> English, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" becomes "the vodka is good but the meat is rotten." English--> Chinese--> Englsih, A treatise on a "hydraulic ram" comes back out talking about a "water goat".

TomS · 16 November 2012

W. H. Heydt said: English--> Russian--> English, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" becomes "the vodka is good but the meat is rotten."
That example seems to have been around at least 50 years, according to an article cited in Wikipedia "Literal translation", and Snopes suspects that it is apocryphal.

Paul Burnett · 16 November 2012

W. H. Heydt said: English--> Chinese--> English, A treatise on a "hydraulic ram" comes back out talking about a "water goat".
"Out of sight, out of mind becomes "Invisible and insane."

Paul Burnett · 16 November 2012

"Out of sight, out of mind" becomes "Invisible and insane."

PT needs a post-submission editing function...

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 November 2012

harold said: It's really not complicated. "Artificial selection", which is to all extents and purposes a needlessly fancy term for "breeding", is a type of natural selection.
Well, most wouldn't really go that far. There's a real difference between, say, a mouse bred up to be very vulnerable to cancer, and one that has been "selected" by the environment to be reproductively fit. Certainly it's all "natural," and there's no actual break between natural selection and artificial selection, but the terms as used are quite meaningful in a practical sense. "Artificial selection" tends to be used because "breeding" is not a very precise term, as we have "breeding" in the wild and then "breeding" of more useful varieties. And, of course, it suggests the analogy with "natural selection" to speak or write of "artificial selection."
Can it be distinguished from other types of natural selection? Yes, it usually can. And walnuts can usually be distinguished from other types of tree nuts, but they're still tree nuts.
But in many cases it is quite important to distinguish between "artificial selection" and "natural selection." The domestic cow produces milk at quantities that serve our purposes. The wild cow produces milk at quantities at times to balance out her continued survival and reproduction, with the success of her calf. Evolutionarily, artificial selection is actually an example of design, and may be detected against the background of natural selection according to usual aspects of design, such as rationality's apparent involvement, as well as the purpose behind it. To be sure, genetic engineering is all the more obvious as design, as opposed to what happens "naturally."
Creationists try to discount many otherwise undeniable examples of evolution through genetic diversity and selection, by pretending that "artificial selection" is in some way unnatural or magical.
Yet the actual features that differ domestic organisms from "wild-type" organisms should not be discounted. Of course artificial selection isn't magical, as they often assume (the mind being magical for nearly all creationists), nevertheless it produces organisms that do incorporate some designed aspects, which are obvious against the background of wholly undesigned organisms.
Creationists themselves can't be changed but their slogans do confuse well-meaning third parties. For the benefit of third parties, it helps to clarify things.
That's why we can't deprecate the importance of artifice involved in genetic engineering and in artificial selection. Artificially selected organisms differ from wild-type organisms in important ways, with the lack of any identifiable purpose and rational design being important markers for wild-type organisms.
Human breeding of domestic animals and plants is a uniqute type of evolution, but it's still evolution, and the selection involved is still natural.
In the context of the supernatural-natural distinction, of course it's "natural." But what known phenomenon isn't in that sense? In the common sense of what occurs "naturally" and what is "done by artifice," it remains important that bizarre strains of mice are in fact artificially selected. We do not explain hairless cats according to "normal" natural selection at all, we have to resort to human desires to explain those. The very lack of obvious artifice in "natural selection"--and also in all known wild-type organisms--remains a crucial difference between "natural selection" and "artificial selection." Glen Davidson

Richard B. Hoppe · 16 November 2012

"Artificial" selection and "natural" selection differ not in the populations under selective pressure in one or the other, but only in the source of the selective environment. What happens in the populations under selective pressure--differential reproductive success as a function of the adaptiveness of varying traits in a given selective environment--does not differ. Mutations that are random with respect to the selective environment, whether or not that environment includes human "desires", are successful or not in that selective environment depending on their effect on the relative reproductive rate of variants with and without the mutations. Gene frequencies change, due both to the selective environment and drift, and populations shift on the fitness landscape. That humans are tinkering with the shape of the fitness landscape doesn't alter the core process.

Just Bob · 16 November 2012

Question for the pros in biology, ethology, philosophy or anything pertinent:

Let us stipulate that artificial selection is the INTENTIONAL selection of organisms with desired traits in order to proliferate or enhance those traits in offspring. I suspect that humans were enhancing the transmission of useful traits before they realized they were doing that, or that they could do it on purpose.

But that aside, here's the question: Are there any other species that might be said to practice artificial selection of other organisms in their environment, i.e., selecting organisms for survival and reproduction in such a way that the selected-upon organisms are gradually improved from the point of view of the selecting species? (A fox selecting for faster rabbits wouldn't count, because faster rabbits are not better from the fox's point of view.)

I realize that many would balk at assigning intention or purpose to non-human animals, but let's be generous for the sake of argument. If humans many thousands of years ago were practicing artificial selection when they decided to keep around the most tractable of the wolf pups (and probably ate the others), without really realizing that over generations they were selecting for and fixing genes for tameness, then might some other species be doing something similar?

Richard B. Hoppe · 16 November 2012

Some ant species 'farm' fungi. It's not clear to what degree (if any) traits of the fungi are due to selection practiced by the ants, though I wouldn't be amazed if it were the case. The fungi apparently have some traits, The ants apparently use chemical agents, like chemicals that fight microfungal 'weeds,' that might be candidates for the practice of (unconscious) selection by the ants. See here for an example.

(Edited to make it clear that the fungi don't produce the agents, but rather apparently the ants use anti-weed bacterial agents.)

Just Bob · 16 November 2012

I was thinking of social insects as possible candidates. Might not bees be selecting for flowers that are more beneficial to the bees by selectively pollinating those that offer the most nectar or are otherwise more attractive?

Come to think of it, don't many animals select for improved fruit by selectively eating the "best" fruit, and thereby distributing the seeds?

harold · 16 November 2012

Richard B. Hoppe said: "Artificial" selection and "natural" selection differ not in the populations under selective pressure in one or the other, but only in the source of the selective environment. What happens in the populations under selective pressure--differential reproductive success as a function of the adaptiveness of varying traits in a given selective environment--does not differ. Mutations that are random with respect to the selective environment, whether or not that environment includes human "desires", are successful or not in that selective environment depending on their effect on the relative reproductive rate of variants with and without the mutations. Gene frequencies change, due both to the selective environment and drift, and populations shift on the fitness landscape. That humans are tinkering with the shape of the fitness landscape doesn't alter the core process.
I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact I didn't. Thank you.
Just Bob said: I was thinking of social insects as possible candidates. Might not bees be selecting for flowers that are more beneficial to the bees by selectively pollinating those that offer the most nectar or are otherwise more attractive? Come to think of it, don't many animals select for improved fruit by selectively eating the "best" fruit, and thereby distributing the seeds?
The last time this came up, someone, I think Gary Hurd, did suggest that domestication could perhaps be considered a form of symbiosis or commensalism.

KlausH · 16 November 2012

Paul Burnett said:
Mike Elzinga said: Hah; time flies.
Challenge sentence for translation programs: "Fruit flies like bananas; time flies like an arrow."
Time flies infest the TARDIS.

Just Bob · 16 November 2012

I guess my point is the same as others have been getting at: "artificial" and "natural" selection are a distinction without a real difference. If humans unintentionally modifying wolves, wild cattle, sheep, etc. into early domesticated breeds is "artificial" selection, then so must the unintentional modification of flowers, fruits, and probably many more things by other animals be "artificial" selection. The modification in both cases benefits the modifier, but is done entirely without a goal in mind of 'improving the breed'.

As others have said: it's all natural.

Henry J · 16 November 2012

Yet the actual features that differ domestic organisms from “wild-type” organisms should not be discounted. Of course artificial selection isn’t magical, as they often assume (the mind being magical for nearly all creationists), nevertheless it produces organisms that do incorporate some designed aspects, which are obvious against the background of wholly undesigned organisms.

Yep, and that's a pattern that wouldn't be there if life were in fact designed outside of the occasional human influence on it. I suppose one difference between artificial and natural selection is that breeders try to reduce the variables to just the ones they think are important, while in nature the variables are apt to be, um, much more variable. What if instead of "artificial" the word "deliberate" were used instead? I suspect that the word "selection" keeps getting used because "differential reproductive success of genetic variations" is somewhat of a mouthful.

Henry J · 16 November 2012

Come to think of it, don’t many animals select for improved fruit by selectively eating the “best” fruit, and thereby distributing the seeds?

That could well be what caused fruit to evolve in the first place. (Which is good, because otherwise living in this world would be fruitless.)

Henry J · 16 November 2012

Paul Burnett said:
Mike Elzinga said: Hah; time flies.
Challenge sentence for translation programs: "Fruit flies like bananas; time flies like an arrow."
Well of course fruit flies like bananas. Because from the flies POV, a banana has a peel.

Chris Lawson · 17 November 2012

The term "natural selection" was invented by Darwin because he and everyone else knew about selective breeding, and his argument was that selective breeding also takes place in natural environments. Hence, natural selection. His entire point was that natural selection and selective breeding were the same process.

harold · 17 November 2012

Yet the actual features that differ domestic organisms from “wild-type” organisms should not be discounted. Of course artificial selection isn’t magical, as they often assume (the mind being magical for nearly all creationists), nevertheless it produces organisms that do incorporate some designed aspects, which are obvious against the background of wholly undesigned organisms.
Yes, that's another thing creationists do. That's pure vintage 1995-Dover "the designer might be an alien" ID. The false analogy between design by known designers and magical design by unknown, unnameable designers. Maybe they stole that from Paley or maybe they came up with the same bad idea on their own. There were, in the end, exactly two "original", or more strictly, repackaged, contributions by ID - "it looks complicated so it couldn't have evolved and must have been designed", which is all that "irreducible complexity", "CSI", etc, actually are, and which is argument from incredulity and false dichotomy, and "humans designed something therefore a deity or alien must have designed the bacterial flagellum", which is an invalid analogy and a non sequitur. That's really all there ever was to ID, even though millions or billions or words of verbose BS were expended. However, of course, the population of people who care about 1995-to-Dover era ID is now in the flatter phase of exponential decay. It dropped off sharply after it was proven useless for its goal of "court-proofing" sectarian evolution denial in public schools. Today Dembski himself is teaching at an obscure fundamentalist YEC seminary. There are still a tiny number of "ID isn't religious" types around the internet, but they are probably about 1% of what they were in 2004, and they won't be replaced when they die off. The point of ID was to grit your teach and pretend that you weren't a creationist, so that you could use illogical sophistry to deny evolution to schoolchildren on the taxpayer's dime, with the goal of semi-secretly implying creationism. Once the "deny evolution to schoolchildren on the taxpayer's dime" part failed, the exercise became somewhat pointless. The bait and switch between "artificial" and "miraculous" because each is "the opposite of natural" is a different, older game, frequ

harold · 17 November 2012

whoops...

The bait and switch between “artificial” and “miraculous” because each is “the opposite of natural” is a different, older game, frequently played by overt YEC types, as here.

gnome de net · 17 November 2012

Henry J said:

What if instead of "artificial" the word "deliberate" were used instead?

Chris Lawson said:

...natural selection and selective breeding [are] the same process.

Natural selection vs. controlled selection?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 17 November 2012

Chris Lawson said: ... His entire point was that natural selection and selective breeding were the same process.
Compare teosinte and corn. The difference is noticeable. Glen Davidson

Just Bob · 17 November 2012

harold said: The point of ID was to grit your teach...
Freudian Slip of the Month!

harold · 18 November 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Chris Lawson said: ... His entire point was that natural selection and selective breeding were the same process.
Compare teosinte and corn. The difference is noticeable. Glen Davidson
Alright, I will compare teosinte to domestic maize strains. Domestic maize strains are the result of a primate species naturally selecting, in a particular environment, strains of a wild grain, probably teosinte. The primates probably noticed that some teosinte plants had more or larger seeds, and also noticed that the offspring of those plants also tended to have more and larger seeds. In other words, thousands of years ago, they figured out some key principles of evolution - genetic variation and selection. There is not a single comment in this thread that says that examples of human breeding cannot be distinguished from other examples of natural selection. It's rather shocking that you keep implying that someone has said that, and that is what you seem to imply, unless I am misinterpreting. It is perfectly true that modern teosinte has been acted on by different selective pressures than have modern strains of domestic maize over the years since they diverged. It's also perfectly true that sea urchins have been acted on by different selective pressures than oak trees, since their common ancestors diverged. No-one is saying that all natural selection is homogeneous, or that different types of natural selection cannot be distinguished from one another, or that human agricultural breeding isn't different in many ways from other types of natural selection.

harold · 18 November 2012

Glen Davidson -

I should add, I really don't think we have a dispute here.

I completely agree that the results of human breeding, whether domestic maize or delicate transgenic mice that can only survive in a special human-created environment, tend to be different from the results of other selective forces.

However, I'm sure we both agree that...

1) The process of human deliberate breeding is, among other things, A) natural and B) selection.

2) The fact that humans can "design", and that we can recognize the "designs" of other humans, including but not limited to products of breeding, does not imply that the bacterial flagellum, Adam and Eve, the first replicating cell on earth, or anything else, had to be "designed" by a deity.

I'm sure you agree with these points, so beyond that, stylistic disputes about the use of the term "artificial selection" have reached an impasse.