The domestication of the russian silver fox. (40 year fast track evolution)

internet ^ | (10/29/02 3:59:34 pm) | dj

[PatrickHenry]

... it apparently doesn't have to take thousands of years ...

This clearly indicates that a determined and disciplined breeding program (or, presumably, a suddenly harsh and demanding environment), affecting a small portion of a species, can make a huge difference in just 30 or 35 generations, requiring a period of only 40 years. It's a great demonstration of why, when speciation occurs (as seems to have been underway here), it would be unlikely for there to be a lot of fossils of intermediates. It happens too quickly. In geological terms, you'd have a brand new species in the blink of an eye. And the old species from which they descended would still be around, if they were unaffected by the selection pressures to which the small group were subjected. One geological monent there's one species, then -- whammo! -- two species, obviously related, yet different. And no intermediate links to be found. Amazing.

[f.Christian]

That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

"They have... lost(link)---a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

[null and void]

These days about 85% of the total human population is within 200' of sea level.

I've often wondered just how much human history was submerged at the end of the last ice age when the sea level rose 200' as the glaciers melted...

[Condorman]

In order for this to be a valid criticism it must first be established that the effects of deliberate selection for certain traits by humans and selection by any other environmental pressures are different.

Odd, I would have thought that you would first have to prove the above concept before I would attempt to disprove it.

You made the claim, it's up to you to support it. That the domestication experiment worked at all is positive evidence that selection pressure causes measurable change in a population. The only thing you have presented so far is your own assertion that it is true.

[Dan Day]

This is a great article which can provide insight even into human evolution. I wonder if humans also evolved for the tamability, that is, the enhanced ability of social interaction.

I once read an article that compared human traits to those of infant or juvenile apes. It gave a *long* list of similarities, which lends credence to what the fox article called "pedomorphism", or the permanent retention of juvenile characteristics in order to mold a new form of life. In fact it was a pretty comprehensive list of *all* of our uniquely human traits.

I can't recall all the traits right now, but they included the human hair pattern (unlike most other mammals we don't have a full coat of fur, we have thick hair only on our heads, armpits, and groin, like infant apes), the position of our foramen magnum (the hole where our spinal cord enters our skull), the small size of our jaw, and so on.

One theory is that the pressures which drove us to become more intelligent found a shortcut by lengthening our "juvenile" period, so that we learned at a rapid rate for decades instead of just the first year or so of life like most mammals ("you can't teach an old dog new tricks"). Another bit of supporting evidence is that humans reach reproductive age slower than any other mammal. Just as tamability was coupled with other physical traits in the foxes, our "long learning period" brought with it many physical changes in humans.

[PatrickHenry]

End-of-session placemarker.

[FormerLib]

That the domestication experiment worked at all is positive evidence that selection pressure causes measurable change in a population.

Actually, the experiment worked because of an intelligent intervention. There was no evidence of anything else. I need not prove what is already established.

[Stavka2]

Don't tell this to the Chinese, they already do.

[Stavka2]

Sure, add me to your list.

[Stavka2]

Boy, aren't we just a little facist on the discussion board today. By the way, 2/3rds of Christianity accepts Evolution (though as a process of God's Will not random chaos), that's the Catholic and Orthodox Churchs. If you don't agree with something that's one thing, trying to block others from discussing it shows you're on the wrong board.

[Stavka2]

Actually one could argue that the more intellegent a creature the less evolution will have a hold on it, because the creature is able to alter it's environment to suit it rather then be altered to suit the environment.

It's interesting that people who believe in an all powerful God are so afraid of science. Science is the handmaiden of religion. If God trully created the world and it functions according to His Will, then all science does is explain how He created the world to work.

[Stavka2]

Actually, that is evolution. If taken on a long enough scale, the bottle neck in genetics will eventually produce an animal that is unable to interbreed with the original species, thus forming a seperate species. Yes, the environment will do that to animals. Whether or not the environment is in turn controlled by an outside force is called Faith. But it is the environment that pushes animals into particular forms and niches. As the ice age regressed, for example, and the earth warmed, those animals with heavy pelts that could not 1. adapt to the temperature change died out. Of those who survived, those with shorter pelts were able to reproduce more quickly and successfully, thus they were able to secure only a certain bandwidth of their genetic spectrum. This in turn became the norm and eventually only genes from this norm would surface in new offspring. Taken far enough out, they become incompatible with those of the original species, if members of said species still survive. An example of this is the Grand Canyon. On the one side is the regular squirrle, on the other the Black squirrel, both species are related but are not able to interbreed, even though the black squirrel is a branch of the regular squirrel family.

On a smaller scale, can be seen the same thing amongst humans, especially more pronounced in colonies, where a small group of families caused a genetic bottleneck to appear and particular traits became dominent, which were otherwise rarely seen. Pigmies are also an example...being short allows them to survive in the savahna better, and uses less water. In the north, humans were always larger, again because of the environmental effects of body mass and generation of body heat. If these groups stayed isolated for say a few hundred more generations, they might become in compatible for cross breeding.

Now, whether you believe that God preplanned this, that He threw dice or that He just allowed chaos/nature to go its way is up to the individual belief system.

[Stavka2]

Take it easy, dogs can go semi ferrel in one generation...go to Ft. Bragg, on the reservation there are dog packs that hunt deer...you'll find the grizzled remains here and there and hear the dogs in the dark. But they can be retamed in the same generation.

[Stavka2]

Actually it's been proven that when women are menstruating their subconscious choice in men changes. They look for more rugged, larger built males.

[Stavka2]

Here's something to throw a ratchet into your theories: first, human hands are not webbed, only in genetic mutations, like 6th fingers. We have more sweat glands per square inch then anyother animal, that is why we have no fur. Our arms are shorter then our legs, bad for climbing. Our stance sucks for speed....we are bifocal, which means we are hunters and we have canines and even our mollars are for rendering meat not chewing plants. Now, what does that mean? It means we are long distance indurance hunters, similar to wild dogs and wolves, why the two species co exist so well.

No fur and large amounts of sweat glands mean that we are able to disappaite body heat at a much faster rate then other animals who must head for shade and pants...we just drink water and sweat. It means also that we can perform heavy bodily exercise: such as running, for a much longer extended period then other animals. Our arms and up right posture are both made for long distance, continued movement...though bipedal movement is slower it allows for more agility and endurance then going on all fours.

What this adds up to is that the human hunter over a distance of several kilometeres was able to litterly run his prey...larger meat animals like gazzel, into the ground. Look at a preditor chasing prey. Neither goes for a long distance before stopping to rest and disappaite body heat...humans don't need to.

[Stavka2]

That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

That's funny because you could apply the same thing to gravity, most people have no clue what or how it works but it continues to do so. So does geography...if one applied this to geography, most of the world would simply disappear...since most people don't know CRAP about anything.

[Stavka2]

It also has to do with the fact that large amounts of water are needed for irrigation and consumption, water ways are easier and quicker to travel on then land. Water provides natural barriers. Fishing allows for the collection of large quantities of protein when adequate grazing is not available. Note also, that the majority of humans do not know how to swim and will drawn if thrown into water.

[f.Christian]

mad brain disesase...evolution is all and all---no reality!

[Darksheare]

There's an animal rescue place near me that has a fox, not sure what type but it is a fox, that wags it's tail and whimpers at people. If you get your hand close to it, it licks your hand and 'whuthers' like a puppy.
Odd little fella. He was supposedly an orphaned kit that was found and raised in someone's home.

Just an odd sidenote.

[Darksheare]

I'll second that one.