/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10536798
>No they aren't the adaptation is being forced for the benefit of humans, not the bred population.
What are the benefits of adaptation for a given population ?
A higher number of descendants.
What happens to populations selected by humans ?
They get a higher number of descendants.
Aurochs disappeared and cows spread all over the world in billions. How is that not benefitting the domesticated population ?


I agree that we're going in circles, because you seek to define natural selection in contrast to selective breeding. You start from the conclusion instead of the facts, and you keep repeating empty assertions like "this is simply not..." or "it is not enough.." without giving a single argument to defend your preconception. Why is it not enough ? Why is it fallacious ? I expect you don't know.

The truth is that there's no need to contrast the two. If you start from the facts (same mechanisms - heredity and procreative failure/success; same outcomes - adaptation to the environment and survival of the population, specific element of the environment involved - humans, particular relationship with this element - a certain form of mutualism), you can only conclude that selective breeding is part of the phenomenon called natural selection.