50 Years of Domesticating Foxes For Science 347
gamebittk writes "In 1959, Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev set out to breed a tamer fox that would be easier for their handlers in the Russian fur industry to work with. Much to the scientist's shock, changes no one had expected emerged after just 10 generations. The foxes began behaving playfully, were smaller in size, and even changed color — much like dogs."
Belyaev died in 1985, but the experiment continued (PDF) in his absence, and to this day provides strong evidence to parts of evolutionary theory. The experiment eventually branched out to involve other species as well.
Re:History (Score:5, Insightful)
"Never the less, it's always scary when humans play god. Something is going to happen eventually, so should be really careful about it."
We are talking about breeding foxes here. Just like breeding dogs/cats/horses/plants, which is done by tens of thousands (hundreds? millions?) of people the world over, and has been for thousands of years.
Re:Evolution - NOT! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the master race discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are in a white area, white people are viewed as part of the family, whereas black people are "different". I'm pretty sure people in the African jungles view white people as they scary ones, especially the ones who want to chop the jungle down.
Still relevant to our understanding (Score:4, Insightful)
If nothing else, this is relevant in so far as illustrating how much behavior and physiology can change by the modification of a single simple and seemingly unrelated hereditary trait.
The long and arduous road of chance modifications to the organisms genome isn't necessary to explain these expressed traits specifically, when these simple modifications can cause entire systems to behave differently. It's whole other way of looking at natural selection.
It's not as though we haven't heard Creationists' arguments hinging upon the expectation that every step in evolution depends on a perfect storm of genetic error...
Re:Evolution - NOT! (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution - Has new genetic information been added? Or has existing information, already within the genome been lost through selective breeding. The latter I think! Foxes still produce after their kind and their offspring are still foxes (albeit with less genetic material than their progenitors)
Information is a rather abstract concept.
The digit "1" ... how much information does that contain? Is it an "on" state? Does it symbolize a single object? Is it being used instead of an "i"? What if we stick a "0" digit beside it... "10" - is that ten? Or just two? Or maybe an "on" state and an "off" state? How much information is contained in those digits? If I move from a binary system to a decimal system, have I created more information? Lost information?
Just because somebody is born with webbed toes doesn't mean they have "more" information in their DNA. It's just being processed and expressed differently.
People really need to learn the difference between Evolution (which is adding new material, through unintelligent, uncontrolled random accidental chance process) and Selective Breeding (which is not evolution, but rather devolution).
Evolution is the process by which various traits and mutations are selected to be passed on to future generations. Typically we talk about "survival of the fittest" where the most beneficial mutations and traits are most likely to be passed on... But that isn't necessarily the case. Plenty of non-negative traits and mutations can be passed on as well.
Selective breeding is simply intelligently-driven evolution. Instead of letting environmental pressures and blind luck select the traits or mutations we want to pass along, human beings do it, by only allowing the right animals to breed.
If you want proof that evolution happens you need look no further than your nearest dog show.
Re:Evolution - NOT! (Score:1, Insightful)
Selective breeding is evolution but not by natural selection. Exactly same process - i.e. only some survive to pass their genes on to the next generation based on traits. Not sure where you are going with this existing information crap - also no such thing as devolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_devolution [wikipedia.org].
Why is there this arbitrary labelling of human actions as "unnatural"? It's as if human actions are automatically thought of as inferior to "natural" actions.
Will someone explain why a poison ivy plant is inherently superior to a mailbox?
Re:Cue the master race discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Evolution - NOT! (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that comes into my head when I hear the word "evolution" is a process by which life as we know it developed from very, very simple organisms.
Well, yes... And then those very, very simple organisms became less simple... And then those less simple organisms became just simple... And then those simple organisms became kind of complex...
Just because an organism is currently fairly complex, doesn't mean evolution has somehow magically stopped. Evolution is happening everywhere, 24/7.
The process mentioned in the article is not this.
Yes it is.
It's being guided by human beings, instead of natural forces... And it's been taking place over a short timeframe... But it's still evolution. The exact same kind of stuff that created all the biodiversity on this planet.
No new genetic information has been added to the gene pool.
Again the "information" word.
If I breed a new kind of fox with black fur, instead of red... Is that new information? Is that more information, or less? What if some fox randomly mutates and is born with neon green fur? Is that new information? More information? Less?
All that has occurred is that existing genes have been rearranged.
Well, but that's kind of the point.
I mean, we've only got the four bases... They can only combine in so many different ways... It's all about the order of the base pairs.
Just like binary - you've only got two digits, it's the order that matters.
You cannot continue the same process and get a cow or an elephant.
Probably not. Not because this isn't evolution, but because those are two very specific and unique species. It would take a hell of a lot of work, and more understanding than we currently have, to turn a fox into an elephant.
But, if we were to keep this up long enough we could very well wind up with an entirely new non-fox species.
The way mutations are worked into the gene pool seems, to me, to be the main interesting thing about evolution, and this article has nothing to do that.
Mutations are essential to biodiversity. They're what introduce new and different things.
Which is specifically why they're avoided and weeded out in selective breeding. With selective breeding you have a specific trait that you are intentionally trying to emphasize. You want to avoid random mutation as much as possible and, to the best of your ability, produce a predictable result.
Also, now I really want a pet fox.
Agreed.
Fur sucks (Score:1, Insightful)
Fur sucks. The animals spend their entire lives in cages and are then killed in very pain full ways. Nobody needs fur.
Re:Cue the master race discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people.
Yup, you're racist alright.
Re:One sliiiight problem with that idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
"we didn't really evolve that much since we got ourselves these big brainy things that we use for thinking."
This isn't true, actually. We did evolve, and a lot too (because although not much time has passed, populations are much higher). The thing is, it's not the "evolution" of racial theorists, of bigger brains or better skills. It's mostly resistance to disease, and adaption to more monotonous diets. When you have a population of half a billion, and half of them die from disease and/or malnutrition before reaching maturity, there's a lot of selection pressure, even over a few generations. Especially since we're talking about new diseases (big crowd diseases) and new diets ("high carb"...) that we haven't already spent millions of years adapting to.
(I guess disease and malnutrition is what keeps seagull population stable as well, but there it is in the form it has always been - they're probably pretty well optimized to it already)
Re:Cue the master race discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one who noticed that when lighter skinned people are frightened they squeal like little girls while darker skinned people tend to lash out often striking whatever it is that caused a fearful reaction? Are there exceptions to these patterns?
This is what is called "observation bias". Observations that confirm your expectations and biases are remembered while the observations that don't confirm your expectations and biases are discounted as "exceptions to these patterns". Simply put, another explanation for these differences in reactions (assuming they exist in the first place) is cultural. And even a century ago, the "lighter skinned people" behaved more physically aggressive than they do now.
As an aside, there's nothing about humans that is fundamentally different from foxes in terms of how genetics or biology works. So yes, you probably can breed a variety of behaviors including "tameness" into humans.
Re:History (Score:2, Insightful)
The major problem with your argument is that it only holds until nuclear bombs start being used. Saving multi-millions in the short term to in the long term kill billions isn't a good investment. The one key argument that has been made about weapons technology as it has progressed has always seemed to be that no one would be crazy enough to use it. Yet, in the end, to start a war in which you know the opponent has mass killing equipment strongly hints that your opponent is crazy and you must use your own mass killing equipment for your protection. With nuclear weapons, self-preservation has translated that into proxy, local wars, so the opponent is never directly a nuclear power. The biggest mistake made so far in this cold war was giving a proxy, Cuba, nuclear weapons and having it in direct conflict with the opponent.
No, this was motivated by "if it bleeds, it leads", a very American-centric view of the death count (a lot more than 3000 people died), and a general desire by most humans to not fight in wars for years.
"initial planning" also considered the threat of chemical weapons. In short, initial planning had a very unrealistic idea of what Iraq had to offer militarily and chose to act when there was still a significant asymmetrical advantage.
At one level, you're right, in that both sides chose to fight a proxy war. But, if they had chosen differently, do you really think we'd still be here today? Every single conflict that arises now that involves directly or indirectly a nuclear power could be the end of most of humanity. If you were a billionaire, would you risk nearly all of your fortune to play a single throw of craps? Would you feel proud or happy to have repeatedly played and never lost but not really gained either?
Perhaps I will judge things differently when a nuclear weapon is finally used on a major city. Only if a nuclear war doesn't start then will I really consider nuclear weapons as humanity's bogeyman, not their self-created downfall.
Re:History (Score:3, Insightful)
the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale
I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.
look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started.
Documented body count of civilians [iraqbodycount.org]: Around a hundred thousand.
But you, you only count enlisted US military personnel. You don't even count the contractors... you disgust me.
Re:Evolution - NOT! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Evolutionary Theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory,
How is that an argument against evolution? One of the points of evolution is that there are no clear cut boundaries between species. Sometimes you have animals that are close enough related that they can bread and produce offsprings and sometimes they are not and thus can't. And well, sometimes they are somewhere in the middle and they can only produce infertile offsprings (tiger+lion, mule+horse, etc.).
Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance
Its not random chance, its the selection process that does the work.
Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation, particularly entropy which states systems move from complexity to simplicity, not the other way around.
Thats only true for closed systems, earth is not a closed system (hint: big glowing day-star is shining plenty of energy on us).
Re:Evolutionary Theory (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong.
Indeed, it's just another tick in the very crowded check box of proven. No need to over hype it.
Rest of your post: tl;dr
Re:History (Score:3, Insightful)
>>I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.
You probably haven't been to Nanking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
Re:Evolution - NOT! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't think it's a valid method, why don't you try it with an UN-gloved hand and report back to us? :-)
If you've worked with big dogs (not those little under-100-pound "pretend-dogs"), you'll *know* when you've been bit.
Re:Still relevant to our understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
Muppets Labs News Flash: Every generation IS a genetic experiment, because every generation produces a new combination of genes that has never been seen before, in every individual (except for twins, etc., and the 1-in-a-billion occurence of human parthenogenesis).
In contrast, according to your theory, the world should be populated by healthy offspring. Nobody should get the flu any more. After all, previous generations were exposed to it, and should now produce only healthy offspring.
Here's an interesting stat about God the Abortionist for all you "Intelligent Design" idiots out there: 20% of all human pregnancies terminate in the first month, before the woman is even awae she's pregnant, because either the fetus or the host is not viable. This culling is part of the process, and necessary because diseases and external predators also evolve - some fast, some slow. If this is "Intelligent Design", your "Designer" has a very high initial FAIL rate, and has caused more abortions than anyone in this world.
Re:Fur sucks (Score:1, Insightful)
I've killed one animal, and I did it myself. I was respectful, as it died. I hunt in a sustainable way. Every piece of cotton you own marks the death of many animals living in our fields and headgerows. Don't tell me I'm the monster for owning a fox hat in the arctic.
Re:Evolutionary Theory (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong
Right, it would be more precise to say that it's evidence in support of some aspects of evolutionary theory.
people get confused about certain things like, a species ability to adapt to its environment, is that it fails to explain how a completely different species evolves
When things adapt in enough different ways they become something completely different.
Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory
No, that's exactly what evolutionary theory predicts - a spectrum of reproductive relationships between populations ranging from "easily interbreeds" through "can interbreed" to "can't interbreed".
it doesn't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species, not by interbreeding between "species".
No evolutionary biologists are saying that hybridization can't happen, or that it doesn't affect evolution. Period.
Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance
Yes it is - things start simple, and get more complex over time. And it isn't "by random chance", but by non-random selection between randomly generated alternatives.
How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents.
No, it isn't. And you should know there are only about 23,000 proteins in humans.
Third and finally, there are certain things about the theory that the laws of thermodynamics seem to be in violation
The only way someone could believe something so completely wrong is to be utterly ignorant of thermodynamics.
I don't believe in the "religion" of evolutionary theory
That's because there is no "religion" involved, and because someone's been feeding you bad information.
Re:History (Score:3, Insightful)
"Most sad thing about it was that they had camps where they trained 5-6 year old boys to exercise physically and to mentally think without fear of enemy, while learning military tactics and strategies."
That’s an invention of the Prussian era. It’s called “school”! ^^ (Seriously! That’s the point and how school started. And you wondered why it’s so dull, just trains people to follow without thinking and also to do automate tasks.)