Is artificial selection considered "evolution"?

[DeistPaladin]

Question for those more literate in the field of zoology than I am:

Evolution, as I understand it, is defined as how life changes over time to suit its environment. Is horse breeding, a big industry in my state, considered an example? What about dog breeding? These are examples of artificial selection. Dogs as a species were bred by humans from wolves. Can these be used as examples of "evolution" for those who question whether or not we've observed such changes over time?

[Minimalist]

I don't know anything about horses but I would say that dog breeding is an example of intelligent design.

Humans have fucked with dogs so much that we now have broken dogs.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/...lems/1281/

Some conditions are directly related to the features breeders have sought to perpetuate among their dogs. As they deliberately manipulated the appearance of dogs to create or accentuate physical characteristics that were considered aesthetically pleasing, like the flat face of a bulldog or low-slung eyelids of a Bloodhound, breeders also created physical disabilities. The excessively wrinkled skin of the Chinese Shar-Pei causes frequent skin infection; Bulldogs and other flat-faced (or brachycephalic) breeds such as the Pekingese have breathing problems because of their set-back noses and shortened air passages; Bloodhounds suffer chronic eye irritation and infection.

The unnaturally large and small sizes of other breeds encourage different problems. For example, toy and miniature breeds often suffer from dislocating kneecaps and heart problems are more common among small dogs. Giant dogs such as Mastiffs, Saint Bernards, and Great Danes are nearly too big for their own good. Researchers have found a striking correlation between a dog’s large size and a frequency of orthopedic problems like hip dysplasia. Large dogs are often prone to heat prostration because they can’t cool down their bodies (tiny dogs, by contrast, have a hard time staying warm), and because of the massive weight they must support, these breeds are prone to malignant bone tumors in their legs. Meanwhile, the huge head and narrow hips of the Bulldog can necessitate that their pups must be born by Caesarean section.

[Some guy]

well here it is, evolution is adding new information to a species without "intelligent" interference but horse breeding is an example of sort of stupid human "intelligent" design where in fact we just get already existing info and make the info shag each other

[DeistPaladin]

I don't know anything about horses but I would say that dog breeding is an example of intelligent design.

I thought ID specified that life doesn't change, that we were created in our current form.

Otherwise, evolution could be ID, since evolution doesn't rule out a creator.

[Minimalist]

I was at a big dog rescue event on Saturday and was chatting with a member of the Greyhound rescue group. These are racing dogs and there is still one track operating in Arizona. Because of breeding for "sleekness" they get many dogs who suffer broken legs simply because the bones are not strong enough to sustain the prolonged pounding they get just from running.

So much for "intelligent" design.

[Tiberius]

I've always understood "evolution by natural selection" as being evolution through non-intervention. So "evolution by artificial selection" is still evolution; it just has a 'non-natural' guide.

[Anomalocaris]

There is no fundamental difference between the natural and the artificial. Human is natural, so everything humans is natural. Evolutioin by human selection is evolution by natural selection. Whether the agency is tiger or human breeder is immaterial.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is a very fundamental difference. Conscious and (semi) intelligent control of the process, with predetermined outcomes which we will select for, and against (that often have very little to do with the animal itself or it's environment). "Misbred" animals get their shot, "misbred" livestock gets shot. In that sense, it is "artificial" (though that's not actually why we refer to it that way, which is nothing more than our tendency to ascribe some other word or significance to what we do with relation to "nature", or "the natural"). Overall, though, Chuck I agree, our own breeding programs are a part of nature in that were are inseparable from nature (expect by our constant insistence to proclaim that we are somehow above/beside/beyond as mused on already).

[Anomalocaris]

There is a very fundamental difference. Conscious and (semi) intelligent control of the process, with predetermined outcomes which we will select for, and against. "Misbred" animals get their shot, "misbred" livestock gets shot.

It's a difference without fundamental distinction. Human consciousness is a product of nature, as is the claws and teeth of a tiger. How an animal is selected by humans through its self-absorbed and self-important "consciousness" is therefore no more or less natural than how animals are selected by tiger predation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Agreed. Human consciousness is a product of nature. However, the process by which animals evolve without our interference is not a product of consciousness or intelligence. I'd call that an important distinction. As would our livestock and crops, if they could speak, which isn't something we're likely to select them for..lol.
(late edit, "is not always", we could invoke sexual selection and the consciousness and intelligence of the animals making the selection)