[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.

[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.

[Diamond]

...positive evidence that selection pressure causes measurable change in a population.

"Measurable change in a population" and "evolution" are two different things. What is the NEW gene or genotype in the example referred to in the article, and how does one know (in a scientific sense) that whatever characteristics present in the surivors was not already inherent in the precursor genes? In short, what is the identification of the "new" gene(s)?

How is this domestication experiment any different than a filter or a culture media in a lab that would not create anything?

Cordially,