But Is It Natural... Selection?
themiddlepane said: Interesting. Could man be playing the part of the selector in the natural selection process here? It does seem a bit unnatural though and just for man’s purpose. I always think of Gattaca when I read stuff like this.
I'm a little late replying, but better late than never... this is in response to my post on Arctic Apples - a genetically engineered, non-browning apple that may be seen soon in Canadian orchards.
I've said before on tumblr that when you take a broad enough view, the distiction between Natural and Synthetic is a little dubious. Still, I think I'd respond that this case with the apples is pretty far outside what we usually mean when we talk about Natural Selection.
Humans are able to "select" at a scale never before seen. This wouldn't be just a group of people picking the apples they like to eat best and distributing the seeds. This would be an organized mass planting. Of course, we've seen this in lots of other crops, and it doesn't really bother me. However, this brings me to...
In natural selection, random mutations/differences occur, and those that are best at surviving (or reproducing) survive (or reproduce). However, the change in Arctic Apples is not random. It was purposeful and directed. Long-term survival of the fittest is likely a good judge of effective changes. In this case however, individual humans are attempting to judge the effectiveness before the change is enacted. And I just don't think we measure up.
Going back to point 1, humans have practiced some pretty directed and massive selection in other species already: dog breeding, seedless grapes, and strawberries for example. Strawberries were tiny nubs before humans started eating (and replanting) the reddest, juiciest berried plants en masse. Dogs, with all their breeds, have changed much much faster that is normal because of human breeding programs.
And the non-adaptiveness of seedless grapes seems pretty clear to me. Yet they flourish, because we love them. How do those things reproduce anyway? No Seeds!!
Interestingly, I'm pretty sure I've read about other species doing this as well. Though acorns would make a good human crop (they contain lots of oils that are difficult to find and essential to our diet), they have not adapted and become delicious to us. Why not?
Apparently the answer is Squirrels. Instead of adapting for human consumption, Oak trees (and their acorns) have adapted to be more convenient and tempting to squirrels, who reciprocate by spreading the seeds (and thus oak trees) farther than humans might have. Cool.
