Does breeding prove evolution?

40 Comments

The theory of evolution says that creatures evolve overtime. It does so since certain more beneficial traits will survive over traits that are not. If you have 12 black cats: 7 black and 5 white and suddenly there is a large period of nothing but snow the white cats will survive and black cats will die out. Breeding is the same concept as evolution. We breed animals with certain traits to have certain futures and they change over a period of time thanks to selective breeding. So is this not proof evolution exists?

Yes 14
No 13
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 40 )
  • q25t
    10 years ago

    In a sense, yes. Animals evolve in the wild due to natural pressures. The only real differences here is that the pressures are human-made (also natural but people like to differentiate anyways) and the timescale.

    People like to argue that there is no new genes being introduced in these situations, which is generally true. However, this is usually just due to the fact that the probability of new information or genes being introduced is low enough that a larger population or greater timescale is necessary to have a good chance of seeing it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • dom180
    10 years ago

    Breeding doesn't prove natural selection, but it pretty much proves that traits in a species can change if they are selected. It does a lot to suggest evolution exists, anyway. If that even makes sense.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • [Old Memory]
    10 years ago

    Breeding pumps out genetically diverse organisms to be naturally selected. Sure, those who are "selected" continue to breed and produce organisms with certain traits, but I would not say that breeding is proof of evolution. Breeding is like a tool for evolution, but not evolution itself, nor proof. It is like a system for evolution to operate through, because obviously evolution cannot occur without breeding. Does that kind of make sense? I can see your point though.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      So if we can make evolution happen artificially is that not proving its possible? So could this not be used as a argument against someone who is trying to state evolution is a lie and impossible?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        10 years ago

        I see breeding as the actual process of giving birth, and evolution as everything else going on with the birth, such as the color of the offspring, their traits, etc., but breeding is just an action, and more specifically, an action evolution takes advantage of to operate through. The two (breeding and evolution) are definitely combined. Evolution happens via multiple generations of births, but I just think that the actual act of having birth is not evolution itself.

        Making evolution happen artificially, such as in a lab, examples in the wild, etc., does indeed prove evolution in my mind.

        Are you up against an opponent of evolution somewhere?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        2
        2
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          10 years ago

          Yes I did ask this for the reason someone was attempting to prove evolution false to me. So I thought of breeding as an example of evidence. However I was wondering if this was a strong enough argument.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • [Old Memory]
            10 years ago

            What was their argument? I am curious

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • Hugh*Janus
    10 years ago

    What you're describing is just positive selection. The creatures are not gaining or losing genes, the prevalence of certain traits is all that is changing.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Darkoil
    10 years ago

    "The theory of evolution says that creatures evolve overtime" No shit Sherlock.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • [Old Memory]
    10 years ago

    dude lay off gthe drugs this didnt make any sense bro

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • DragonQueen
      10 years ago

      Say more funny things Semen, you make me laugh!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        10 years ago

        i will make you laugh with more than words deary

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • DragonQueen
          10 years ago

          Ooooooooh, Make me laugh, anyway you can!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          -1
          -1
  • linchpin
    10 years ago

    The only thing that I think proves evolution is mankinds ability to communicate and maintain his environment, two things which although we have the means to do we are simply failing at

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      The reason we fail at it is because we took out the one thing that is suppose to regulate the species. We do not have to worry that our sick, injured or the unintelligent/incapable ones in our species are going to die. In the past if you were sick, injured or had no common sense you die. We have taken this out. So now we are overpopulated. As well as that we have no real predators besides us. The predators in our species are arrested.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
  • charli.m
    10 years ago

    6 + 4 is not 12...

    I'm not even going to bother with the rest of it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
  • Thorolf
    7 years ago

    Of course. Everyone knows it does by now.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • lilmich
    10 years ago

    Yes evolution exists, but I think you might want to do a little more research into evolution and before asking a question this way. Your question didn't make any sense and you can't use the evolution of the peppered moth and change it for cats!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      I am not doing anything with cats it was an example. Also breeding follows the same rules as evolution. The belief that overtime something changes since certain birth traits will survive. This is what is known as evolution. With dog breeding we pick what traits we want to survive and breed those till we get a totally different species but no matter what we still have what is recognized as a dog. Just many different type, sizes and shapes of them. I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Psoriano
    10 years ago

    Breeding means having offspring and nothing more. You must mean selective breeding. In that case, it obviously proves evolution. Nevertheless I think your understanding of evolution is somewhat close to accurate but still pretty mistaken.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      Wrong type of breeding. I meant dog breeding.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Anonymous Post Author
    10 years ago

    Im shocked to see this poll is split perfectly.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • [Old Memory]
    10 years ago

    "If you have 12 black cats: 7 black and 5 white and suddenly there is a large period of nothing but snow the white cats will survive and black cats will die out"

    What kind of logic is this? Why would the color of the cat make them survive?

    While I think evolution is obvious this is the worst argument for it I have heard.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Hugh*Janus
      10 years ago

      During the industrial revolition in England the moths went from a mix of dark and white individuals to only dark ones because the dark ones survived in all the soot that was everywhere (blended in better). But after the pollution subsided the moths went back to being a mix of dark and light. So this mirrors OP's point however since the moths didn't evolve it also renders OP's point worthless. The moths already had the genes for dark/light and never lost them and also didn't turn another new species.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
    • Sog
      10 years ago

      The logic is that the cats will blend in so they will be overlooked by any natural predators, thus allowing them to survive.

      The issue here is that cats are usually at the top of the food chain. It would have made more sense if OP used mice in the example.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
    • [Old Memory]
      10 years ago

      I also just noticed you said "12 black cats" followed by stating that only some of the cats are black.

      I'm going to guess you were very high when you wrote this.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • charli.m
        10 years ago

        They originally had 6 black and 4 white cats. I told them this twice and they still didn't get it. They've changed the story since, but it took a while.

        They also deleted the comments where they yelled random shit at me for believing in creationism. Cos my post clearly states my stance on evolution/creationism...

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          10 years ago

          I simply re-asked you the question. Than asked if you believe in evolution or not. Also yes I fixed it.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • charli.m
            10 years ago

            I have copies of your comments in my emails. You didn't re-ask, you ranted. I can repost the evidence of my claims if you wish.

            But you won't want that, because it'd prove you wrong.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      Alright the original example was with moths. I will link the article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evol...</a>

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • Anonymous Post Author
        10 years ago

        I guess you find the scientist who thought of this was a fool.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • Sog
    10 years ago

    Not exactly.

    Breeding doesn't demonstrate that animals will develop desirable traits by just being a part of natural selection.

    That is really the critical part to the theory of evolution - that it is entirely driven by natural selection. Our understanding of genetics can explain the HOW for that process, but it doesn't necessarily prove that it's happening.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • thegypsysailor
    10 years ago

    No, it's proof that breeding exists, nothing more.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      Is this not the same concept as evolution though?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • jeebley
        10 years ago

        You're right. Artificial selection shows that species do change over time. In natural selection it's the environment that picks which individuals will survive to reproduce, not the breeder. That's the only difference. So it's definitely evidence for evolution.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        3
        3