[Tublecane]

“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.

[EnderWiggins]

"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.