Is dog breeding evolution?

  • Thread starter 111111
  • Start date
  • #26
86
0
Survival of the fittest
Is it that only the fittest digs survive? Or that only the ones best adapted to the Humans taste are bred, this does not lead to the other dogs no surviving? Dogs who fail to comply with the owners needs are not killed, and the breeding is forced on the dog it has no decision in the matter...

I never said humans where not natural, however the process in which the dogs are bred is determined by the owner and not the dogs.
We better get used to considering human intervention as a method of evolution because someday their may be no natural habitat for them to be naturally selected from.
 
  • #27
798
0
It's not about surviving; it's about breeding.

A dog might breed more because it has better night vision, enabling it to hunt at night.

But a dog might also breed more because it finds itself without a chicken wire fence between it and a potential mate.

In neither case is it the dog's choice or decision.
Yeah, Dave I see your point there. I was meaning that two different backgrounds result in two different end products, but that is nothing special, and I am sure that would be obvious to most people, it seemed to slip my mind :shy: I think the real problem here is that I do not have a sound knowledge of evolotion, and probably have alot of missunderstandings. I think it might be a good idea for me to do a bit more reading. Thanks for putting that into perspective. :smile:
 
  • #28
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Survival of the fittest
Is it that only the fittest digs survive?
In the case of pet dogs, their "ecosystem" testing their fitness is their relationship & cohabitation with humans. (as chroot was saying)
So, the more pleasing a particular variation is to humans, the more that variation will be selected for. (shifting frequency of alleles = evolution)
Note that dogs are a very successful species because they get so much help from humans.

Or that only the ones best adapted to the Humans taste are bred, this does not lead to the other dogs no surviving? Dogs who fail to comply with the owners needs are not killed,
Of course many dogs that are not adopted are put down.
That aside...as someone else said, one of the keys to evolution is leaving more offspring. So the more popular type of dog is selected by humans to produce more offspring.

and the breeding is forced on the dog it has no decision in the matter...I never said humans where not natural, however the process in which the dogs are bred is determined by the owner and not the dogs.
No creature breeds with evolution specifically in mind. They simply breed and gene frequencies shift over time depending on the selective pressures. In the wild, the selective pressures are "natural" and in human control, they're called "artificial". But it's semantics...artificial selection is a subset of natural selection. It can be a useful distinction at times, but people here are just saying that it's all still the same evolution concept.
 
  • #29
1
0
hi, i just wanted to set a few things right,
"survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with how fit something is, only how many offspring it leaves behind. for example, if an olympic athlet has no children, they have a fitness of 0, they my as well have not been born as evolution see it, but someone who can not run 10 metres but has 20 children is very fit. its all about the number of offspring.

the term is artificial SELECTION or natural SELECTION not artificail evolution, this does not exsist. and it is correct that they do the same thing, they change the FITNESS of individuals. it does not matter if it is the enviroment of a human taht decides if the dog can breed, it is all selection, the only difference is humans think they are more special than they are, so they get a special term.

ok so the answer to the first question (dog breeding) is yes it is probably possible. there was a study with selective breeding on corn kernal oil which managed to get one strain down to almost no oil in the kernal and another strain to over 100 times the amount of starting oil. this shows the possibilities with selective breeding.
also most of the production animals eg. cows, have been breed in this way, the cow evolved from the auroc (i think that is spelt correctly) which was around twice the size of what we have today. it was transformed to the modern day cow because of selective breeding.

and i do have some idea of what i am talking about, i study genetics at university. and i know i am a bad speller.
(just for nick, you would not say dog breeding is evolution, dog breeding is artificial selection which is a process that causes evolution)
 
Last edited:
  • #30
86
0
hi, i just wanted to set a few things right,
"survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with how fit something is, only how many offspring it leaves behind. for example, if an olympic athlet has no children, they have a fitness of 0, they my as well have not been born as evolution see it, but someone who can not run 10 metres but has 20 children is very fit. its all about the number of offspring.

)
True, except that some species have less offspring so that more time can be spent protecting and teaching them, which may actually end up leading to more breading offspring in the end.

I also think that sexual attraction plays a very big often ignored role in evolution. I believe that our brains, particularly females of the human race, have a subconcous domain which makes them attracted to mates for certain reasons depending on the environment that they are living in. A social group develops a system of pride. Things people may take pride in are strength, agility, intelligence, bravery, etc. Maybe one lizard is big and strong, but slow. The female lizard may laugh at the slow lizard, then again maybe she laughs at the fast but less strong lizard. Maybe in an environment that
is requires bulk and brute strength will make the big lizard look attractive to the female? Maybe an environment that requires speed and agility will make a female choose a fast but smaller mate.

If you die, you can't mate. This leads to evolution. However I think that evolution in certain species is driven more by mate selection than by death, and both work together as a team to steer a species in the right direction.
 
  • #31
As far as the OP goes, the important thing is how closely breeder selection mimicks a pattern of natural selection -- that is, whether creatures are being selected for their genotypes or phenotypes.

For instance, in the early days of cattle breeding (and in most cows today, in fact), breeding was natural selection in all but name -- cows which produced more milk or meat were allowed to breed, gradually resulting in a population that produces more milk or meat. This is a direct, immediate selection due to phenotype, and fits evolution.

But most dogs nowadays are bred with foresight. A dogs will be bred from if there's a good chance that they carry a desired mutation, WHETHER OR NOT THEY EXHIBIT THE MUTATION PHYSICALLY. their partner will be chosen to have the same mutation. this does not mimick natural selection and does not fit the evolution model -- it's similar, but not the same.
 

Related Threads on Is dog breeding evolution?

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
6K
Top