Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Survival of the Cutest' Proves Darwin Right
Science Daily ^ | 01/21/2009

Posted on 01/26/2010 2:10:25 PM PST by autumnraine

Domestic dogs have followed their own evolutionary path, twisting Darwin's directive 'survival of the fittest' to their own needs -- and have proved him right in the process, according to a new study by biologists Chris Klingenberg, of The University of Manchester and Abby Drake, of the College of the Holy Cross in the US.

The study, published in The American Naturalist on January 20, 2010, compared the skull shapes of domestic dogs with those of different species across the order Carnivora, to which dogs belong along with cats, bears, weasels, civets and even seals and walruses.

It found that the skull shapes of domestic dogs varied as much as those of the whole order. It also showed that the extremes of diversity were farther apart in domestic dogs than in the rest of the order. This means, for instance, that a Collie has a skull shape that is more different from that of a Pekingese than the skull shape of the cat is from that of a walrus.

Dr Drake explains: "We usually think of evolution as a slow and gradual process, but the incredible amount of diversity in domestic dogs has originated through selective breeding in just the last few hundred years, and particularly after the modern purebred dog breeds were established in the last 150 years."

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: beauty; darwin; evolution; godsgravesglyphs

1 posted on 01/26/2010 2:10:26 PM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

diversity in domestic dogs has originated through selective breeding


OK, when did selective breeding become the same as evolution?


2 posted on 01/26/2010 2:13:55 PM PST by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
This study illustrates the power of Darwinian selection

Huh? There has been a designing intelligence at work here - the people who have been breeding dogs to select for various characteristics.

3 posted on 01/26/2010 2:15:04 PM PST by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Leave it to a Darwinist to try and use the intelligent intervention of humans as proof of magic.


4 posted on 01/26/2010 2:15:12 PM PST by Anti-Utopian ("Come, let's away to prison; We two alone will sing like birds I' th' cage." -King Lear [V,iii,6-8])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Amusing. But it’s not “survival of the cutest,” it’s “selective breeding of the cutest,” or of the most useful for various human purposes.

It’s not blind chance that results in different breeds of dog.

Also, of course, no one doubts that there is intraspecies evolution, natural as well as human guided. It’s general evolution, guided by blind chance, that is in question.

The article concludes with one of the good Darwinian doctors saying: “This study illustrates the power of Darwinian selection with so much variation produced in such a short period of time. The evidence is very strong.”

No, it illustrates how human intervention can produce remarkable variation within a species.


5 posted on 01/26/2010 2:16:59 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I’m a huge dog fan but the Darwinians certainly speak as evidence for the failure of their thesis, else how did they survive? They sure aren’t the smartest and I’ll bet not the cutest.


6 posted on 01/26/2010 2:20:28 PM PST by dumpthelibs (dumpthelibs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Survival of the Cutest? Explain this:


7 posted on 01/26/2010 2:23:26 PM PST by CholeraJoe (Deja Moo - The feeling that you have heard this BS before.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Dogs continue to be but ONE SPECIES.


8 posted on 01/26/2010 2:25:09 PM PST by muawiyah ("Git Out The Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
"... OK, when did selective breeding become the same as evolution?

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I'll answer you with "1933":


9 posted on 01/26/2010 2:30:40 PM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
Explain this:

The Helen Thomas of the dog world?

10 posted on 01/26/2010 2:32:33 PM PST by Doomonyou (Let them eat Lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Dogs which don’t meet the breeders stringent target are either killed, or eliminated from reproduction in that breed, so change is rapid. Meanwhile wolves, which are subject only to natural selection, have not changed visibly in all the time humans have been watching them.


11 posted on 01/26/2010 2:33:40 PM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Please tell me we didn’t pay for this stupid study?

never mind


12 posted on 01/26/2010 2:48:45 PM PST by South Dakota (Drill baby, drill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
"OK, when did selective breeding become the same as evolution? "

Always. The only difference is the agency doing the selection. The key facet of evolutionary theory is isolated populations facing different environmental challenges. The only difference here is that the "isolation" and selection "vector" are imposed by humans rather than Mother Nature.

13 posted on 01/26/2010 2:59:33 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Sounds like intelligent design to me.
14 posted on 01/26/2010 3:02:56 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Domestic dogs didn’t evolve through natural selection, they’ve been bred to be what they are. No one would argue that dairy cows or domestic turkeys are examples of the “survival of the fittest”


15 posted on 01/26/2010 3:04:45 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Obama: The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

I’m no scientist, but dog selection is not natural selection. Humans breed dogs, not nature. Not that we’re never tricked into loving one kind over another, but for the most part it’s on purpose.


16 posted on 01/26/2010 3:05:42 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

This means, for instance, that a Collie has a skull shape that is more different from that of a Pekingese than the skull shape of the cat is from that of a walrus.

Does this really make any sense? and what difference
does it make??


17 posted on 01/26/2010 3:07:11 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
The head of a cat is different from a walrus? No wonder they don't do well under water!

Darwin was right, “Without a walrus head kitties do not do well in cold attic waters, on the other hand a walrus tusk will poke your eye right out if he tries to lick your face.”

18 posted on 01/26/2010 3:07:36 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
No one would argue that dairy cows or domestic turkeys are examples of the “survival of the fittest”

More like "survival of the fattest"! :-)

19 posted on 01/26/2010 3:08:32 PM PST by EternalVigilance (For the children's sake, it's time to separate school and state!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

“The key facet of evolutionary theory is isolated populations facing different environmental challenges. The only difference here is that the ‘isolation’ and selection ‘vector’ are imposed by humans rather than Mother Nature.”

To my mind, that’s a HUGE difference, so much so that you’re really not studying the same thing at all. It’s the difference between a Blind Watchmaker and Intelligent Design.


20 posted on 01/26/2010 3:08:57 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
OK, when did selective breeding become the same as evolution?

The difference is how the selection is done. If the fittest survive to breed, whatever fittest might mean at any given time and place, then it's evolution. If the ”less desirable” are culled or sterilized, while the “more desirable”; are allowed and encouraged to breed, it's selective breeding.

If the less fit and undesirable are allowed, encouraged, and subsidized to breed, it's liberalism.

21 posted on 01/26/2010 3:13:38 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
No one would argue that dairy cows or domestic turkeys are examples of the “survival of the fittest”

Fittest for what? And determined how. They are the fittest for producing lots of milk and providing lots of breast meat respectively.

22 posted on 01/26/2010 3:16:36 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

in this case it is actually intelligent selection as the dogs were already designed


23 posted on 01/26/2010 3:18:55 PM PST by ari-freedom (Obamacare: nananana nananana hey hey hey goodbye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

“If the less fit and undesirable are allowed, encouraged, and subsidized to breed, it’s liberalism. “

liberalism punishes the successful more than it rewards the unsuccessful.


24 posted on 01/26/2010 3:21:03 PM PST by ari-freedom (Obamacare: nananana nananana hey hey hey goodbye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
The work of breeders was known before Darwin came along. But all of these dogs are still part of the same species.

Darwin and his contemporaries developed the idea that species themselves were the result of evolutionary change.

So technically, so long as the dogs are all the same species (i.e. can interbreed), Darwin isn't proved right.

Or at least that's what I was able to get from educational television.

It is kind of cool, though, that two dogs can be as diffferent in appearance as dogs and creatures of other species.

25 posted on 01/26/2010 3:24:47 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

selective breading is done by someone designing the outcome of the dogs.


26 posted on 01/26/2010 3:36:58 PM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to GOD! Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Ben Stein has a good documentary on one of the movie channels. It shows the leading Darwinist trying to explain the origins of life. They admit we could have been created by aliens or some higher being but they were 98% sure it wasn't God. Stein exposed their bias against any science that pointed toward the possibility of a designer. Their atheism came before their science.
27 posted on 01/26/2010 3:44:33 PM PST by peeps36 (Democrats Don't Need No Stinking Input From You Little People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
No one would argue that dairy cows or domestic turkeys are examples of the “survival of the fittest”

"Fittest" is a bad word choice: what's really meant by the concept is 'survival of the fitted: the critter that's best fitted to its environment survives best. Domestic turkeys are ideally fitted to the environment of a turkey-meat industry.

28 posted on 01/26/2010 3:56:14 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"To my mind, that’s a HUGE difference, so much so that you’re really not studying the same thing at all. It’s the difference between a Blind Watchmaker and Intelligent Design."

So, what you are saying is that the way God did his intelligent design is by working according to the laws of evolution. Do you "really" want to go there??

29 posted on 01/27/2010 3:31:21 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
OK, when did selective breeding become the same as evolution?

Natural selection is selective breeding.
30 posted on 01/27/2010 10:20:08 AM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"It’s not blind chance that results in different breeds of dog."

It's also not "blind chance" that results in different species. Evolution does not operate by "blind chance." Point mutations do... but they only increase genetic diversity... replacing the genetic diversity lost through natural (or artificial) selection. And that is only half of the process, providing raw material than can then be acted on by selection.

But the selection itself is anything but "blind." It instead is driven by external and objective standards of fitness, driving inexorably towards those standards in a completely deterministic and non-random way.

What the article misses here is actually the key point... modern varieties of dog lay completely outside the natural variation of their wild lupine ancestors. Not only has artificial selection taken advantage of the natural genetic variation of wild wolves, it has also taken advantage of new genetic information that arose during the period of domestication via random mutation.

Dogs are not only the result of selection, they contain a vast amount of evolutionary innovation that cannot be blamed on an "intelligent" breeder.
31 posted on 01/27/2010 10:38:23 AM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

Well, actually, Darwinian theory says that each instance of gene selection and mutation IS blind chance. But then “survival of the fittest” intervenes and selects those changes and mutations that are favorable, and the unfavorable ones die off.

—Bean


32 posted on 01/27/2010 11:36:07 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

“’To my mind, that’s a HUGE difference, so much so that you’re really not studying the same thing at all. It’s the difference between a Blind Watchmaker and Intelligent Design.’

“So, what you are saying is that the way God did his intelligent design is by working according to the laws of evolution. Do you ‘really’ want to go there??”

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all, and I don’t know how anyone could draw that conclusion from what I said. Humans don’t breed dogs “by working according to the laws of evolution”. Selective breeding is, in fact, anti-evolutionary.


33 posted on 01/27/2010 12:38:03 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: EnderWiggins

“Natural selection is selective breeding”

Yes, in that nature is doing the selecting. But when we talk about breeding, we’re talking about an artificial process. It’s humans rather than nature deciding what genes get passed on to the next generation. There are similarities between the two processes, but they’re really not the same thing. And if nothing else, breeding was not what Darwin was on about, and therefore the results of dog breeding wouldn’t prove his points either way.


34 posted on 01/27/2010 12:44:11 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"Yes, in that nature is doing the selecting. But when we talk about breeding, we’re talking about an artificial process."

Oh? I guess I have spent too much time in a rural environment. There is a vast amount of breeding that goes on without any human intervention whatsoever. I know (for example) of very few people breeding prairie dogs... but they sure seem to be quite adept at reproducing near my home in Colorado.

"It’s humans rather than nature deciding what genes get passed on to the next generation. There are similarities between the two processes, but they’re really not the same thing. And if nothing else, breeding was not what Darwin was on about, and therefore the results of dog breeding wouldn’t prove his points either way."

The two processes are essentially identical except for the selector determining the criteria for fitness. In one case it is an intelligent selector selecting for arbitrary traits like "cuteness" and in the other it is a non-intelligent selector selecting for traits with genuine survival value like "speed."

They are otherwise the identical process:

1. Random point mutations create genetic variation.

2. Some selection takes place allowing favored genes to survive disproportionally into the future.

Rinse and repeat.
35 posted on 01/27/2010 1:49:57 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"Well, actually, Darwinian theory says that each instance of gene selection and mutation IS blind chance. But then “survival of the fittest” intervenes and selects those changes and mutations that are favorable, and the unfavorable ones die off."

Close... but not quite.

Only the mutation is guided by "blind chance."

The gene selection is not. It is contingent, and will change direction as the environment changes (thus altering the objective criteria for "fitness.") But it is emphatically not blind.

You are confused in that you try to put "selection" at two different places in the process.
36 posted on 01/27/2010 1:57:07 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"Humans don’t breed dogs “by working according to the laws of evolution”. Selective breeding is, in fact, anti-evolutionary."

Sure they do. Selective breeding does two things, it isolates a specific phenotype by not allowing breeding with other phenotypes, and the breeder chooses a set of characteristics that will survive, often by killing or neutering those individuals that don't have the desired characteristics. Evolution isolates a specific phenotype by geography (isolated ecosystems) and "chooses" a set of characteristics that will survive best under a certain set of conditions ("survival of the fittest"). The underlying mechanisms are precisely the same in both cases---isolation and selection, which is precisely what "evolution" is. The fact that one is done by a human agent and the other by "impersonal nature" is irrelevant.

37 posted on 01/27/2010 2:21:56 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: blam

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Breeding merely accelerates and/or exaggerates randomness ("diversity") in the genome.
Domestic dogs have followed their own evolutionary path, twisting Darwin's directive 'survival of the fittest' to their own needs -- and have proved him right in the process, according to a new study by biologists Chris Klingenberg, of The University of Manchester and Abby Drake, of the College of the Holy Cross in the US. The study, published in The American Naturalist on January 20, 2010, compared the skull shapes of domestic dogs with those of different species across the order Carnivora, to which dogs belong along with cats, bears, weasels, civets and even seals and walruses. It found that the skull shapes of domestic dogs varied as much as those of the whole order. It also showed that the extremes of diversity were farther apart in domestic dogs than in the rest of the order.
IOW, selective breeding brought out lots of diversity in shape and so on, which basically negates the idea that it was driven by a search for cuteness. :')

From January. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. Thanks autumnraine.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


38 posted on 05/22/2010 9:48:03 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


39 posted on 05/22/2010 9:50:25 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


40 posted on 05/22/2010 10:36:58 AM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson