This One\'s for David (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 23, 2010, 20:22 (5230 days ago) @ David Turell


> > The way I see it, natural selection would only allow changes if there was some need to change, ie, change in food, climate, etc. 
> > 
> > Humans in domestic dogs provide the change in that we're actively selecting for some kind of trait. What the story confirms to me, is that wolves are extremely well adapted; they don't need to change, so they don't. Domesticated dogs have an artificial need to change. 
> > 
> > Or said another way, you might say that natural selection is too passive, but it is a fitting explanation to why the possible variation displayed by dogs didn't happen in wolves.
> 
> You are the one who said it. I firmly believe it. Any evolutionary process based totally on natural selection is entirely passive. It must work on the variety of organisms presented to it, and it must respond to envoironmental changes, only if they appear.-But it doesn't change the its the most fitting explanation. If there was an intelligence moving wolves to some teleological evolution, then we would see that. -But we don't. -We only saw changes when we humans deliberately started selecting for some specific traits. -Your case here is really weak. If intelligence guides evolution, then we should be seeing changes occurring NOW that cannot be attributed to selection. The case of wolves and dogs shows us only that when selection for a trait is applied, does evolution do its work. -It means that wolves have a form that is extremely well-suited for what they do and where they live, and it faces no pressure to change. This is an argument that supports natural selection, not undermines it.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"