Slashdot Mirror
50 Years of Domesticating Foxes For Science
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.
As I read through the article, blue eyes, fair skin and hair were as indicated as behavior. Correlation and causation discussion aside, I can't help but draw some parallels in human society.
I am trying to avoid presenting this as an argument for racism, but I think it is almost instinctive that darker skinned people are more feared than lighter skinned people. Darker skinned people are viewed as stronger, more healthy while lighter skinned people are viewed as weaker, more sickly. I can't say where the facts are in all of this, but the perception is pretty clear.
And dare I mention the "practical jokes" videos out there all over youtube and similar sites? 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? Certainly.
And in the articles, it was by selective breeding with these patterns in mind, that these new foxes and rats were created.
I know some people are immediately offended when parallels are drawn between humans and other animals (hell, just by saying "other animals" I am probably making some people angry) but even the most simple observations make some conclusions seem quite obvious to draw.
I was all excited for a second because I thought I'd be reading a story about Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and everyone else over a Fox News and the attempts to make them somewhat more human.
I love those coats! This is research for the greater good.
Home of The Suki Series
the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale, say full on global thermo nuclear war. just having them has done great things for mankind. before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war. after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did. for the most part they stay pretty local and don't escalate into the blood baths of old. i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90's and even those didn't hit pre WWII numbers.
look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started. granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush, but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad. major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours. the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes. however, look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities. that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.
i for one love nukes and the fruits of our scientists efforts.
I think that the statement it proves evolutionary theory is a bit, strong.
The are issues with evolutionary theory, and I think 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, number one.
For example, Polar Bears, which yes due to climate change (Man made or otherwise...) are losing their environment, are adapting by interbreeding with Grizzily bears and producing offspring. This is happening because the Polar bears are forced to move south because of lack of Icepak.
Certain ideas about them being seperate species are about to shatter some of the ideas of evolutionary theory, but like a lot of evidence due to climate change, it is being surpressed or just tossed out because it doesn't support the idea species change can only happen in a said species, not by interbreeding between "species".
Secondly, it is not clear even from a biological point of view how a new complex system can arise by random chance, such as developing an entirely different organ for example in a very gradual way. We already know how intricate DNA is, and the instructions to build cellular organs number in the billions of proteins. How all 1 billion of those proteins arose by chance over time is a huge problem for evolutionary proponents. Not just mathematically speaking, but no mechnism in biochemistry has been pointed out so far, that would allow for random variations in biochemisty to produce anything but proteins or instruction which kill the organism outright.
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.
Something odd is going on with life, for sure.
As we learn more about life, the case of how life works gets even more odd.
I don't believe in the "religion" of evolutionary theory, and I think it has held back science for a century in making any real progress in the basic questions in biochemistry, which if you do not tow the line your papers don't get published or funded.
But I wish evolutionary "priests" of the science would stop trying to kill "God" and let talented young people with new ideas about how biochemistry works and the mechnisms for change to be done in a more tolerant environment.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
That is breeding - and a rather simple and limited form of it.
If we are to call that evolving, then we may just as well start talking how Australians have evolved to be more resilient to heat and hardship than their British ancestors.
After all, weaker ones have all died out. Right?
Or how about our resistance to common diseases like flu?
"Regular" flu still takes around 500.000 lives each year globally - that is quite a bit for such a common disease.
Untreated, even a common cold can still kill us. That is why we have invented medicine.
And I am not talking penicillin here - I mean the stuff that has been around since we lived in caves. Herbs, teas, ointments and such.
And we didn't become immune to plague or tuberculosis - we came up with a treatment.
Also, we as a species are able to migrate A LOT better than other animals.
That is why a death of half a million annually from flu goes by unnoticed and has little to no effect on improving our immunity as species.
Those 500.000 live all around the globe.
We are not limited to a single location, way of life or a food source - as a species.
That is why there is no such thing as a "pure" human. Or a pure German, American, French, Chinese, negro, Caucasian, Asian...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.
Let's look at the facts: people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to this day. Not only that, you can have a picnic at Ground Zero. So you're completely full of shit and have probably never been to Hiroshima in the first place.
Secondly, the point the OP was making was that war deaths today are a fraction of the deaths in WW2. You want to compare civilian deaths? The numbers at IraqBodyCount.org are quite suspect, but let's say there were 500,000 civilian deaths just for argument's sake. There were over 100,000,000 civilian deaths in WW2 and almost 3,000,000 deaths in Korea. The numbers in Iraq just don't compare to previous wars.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.