A reader writes:
Nice   story on NOVA last    night about the evolution of Dogs and Man at Yale. Most interesting    points for me were
  
  1) how selection for tameness ended up yielding, as a surprise    by-product, extraordinary variety of weird appearance characteristics    in dogs, and
  
  2) how man developed superb sniffers, hunters, runners, pointers,    herders, etc., not by deliberately breeding in the modern sense, but    simply by inevitably shaping the social environment, mostly food supply    and mating chances, of the nearby hounds. 
  
  All implications for human evolution were passed over until a final bit    on how dogs may help us identify genes for human narcolepsy and other    genetic diseases.
  
  And the Victorian invention of deliberate inbreeding for pure    appearance, not performance, was characterized as "racist eugenics," of    course.   
Greg Cochran's    theory is that just as selecting for new personality traits in wild    animals that you are trying to domesticate often introduces new physical    looks, the famous diversity of looks among Europeans (red and blond    hair, blue, gray, and green eyes) are by-products of natural selection    for new personality traits favorable to survival in Europe. Blue eyes,    for example, might possibly be a by-product of selection for something    like shyness.  
  
  Most theories of European hair and eye color focus on sexual selection    (like the peacock's tale) rather than natural selection, but Cochran    says he is averse to thinking about sexual selection on the grounds that    it too often turns out to be a conceptual dead end. It's too random.    Clearly, examples of sexual selection exist now and then, but Cochran    believes that relying on sexual selection for explanations encourages    lazy thinking, a little like in the Stanley Harris cartoon where a    scientist has filled the left and right sides of the blackboard with    equations but in the middle he has only written "A miracle happens    here."  
  
  I'm not sure I agree, but, generally speaking, disagreeing with Cochran    is not typically a winning strategy. 
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
 
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
 
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment