Re: Evolution Basic Questions
- From: Darwin123 <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 13, 7:29 pm, cassandra <cassandra99...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 13, 3:52 pm,Darwin123<drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:51 am, cassandra <cassandra99...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Jul 9, 6:52 pm, nmp <addr...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:44 pm, "E. Figueroa" <eliezerfigue...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A few specific recommendations would be helpful. And if you don't mindYou got me. I don't know much about dogs. I read a lot about
posting your bona fides relating to dog behavior and breeding, I might
be more inclined to accept your assertions of authority.
speciation, evolution and genetics. So even though I don't have all
the specifics about dogs, I feel qualified to at least state the
conventional wisdom (which of course may not be true).
Darwin himself pointed out that the "breeding" of domestic
animals by human beings was not always conscious. Even when the
breeding is conscious, the result doesn't always match natural
Breeding for a specific trait results in a far different result
than breeding for function. I read that in "Origin of the Species,"
and I haven't recently read any studies refuting this. Humans can
breed dogs for a particular color of the coat. In other words, you use
selection to force one or two alleles to conform to your wishes. One
will eventually get a very sick breed of dogs. However, humans can
also breed to obtain the best functioning "hunting dog." When that
happens, the result is more unpredictable. However, the dog will be a
lot healthier. Breeding for function is more similar to natural
selection than breeding for specific traits.
I think that those breeds bred for general functions are most
likely to survive the extinction of mankind. A dog that is bred to
sniff bombs is more likely to use this skill in the wild than a dog
that is bred to twitch his nose. It may not be a bomb that he sniffs,
but there will be something the dog needs to find.