Ed's Questions:
The difference between training and domestication?  Good question, Ed.
Now pay attention; there will be a quiz later.  The two are inherently
different processes that have extremely different outcomes at the species
level.  Domestication results in the shifting of genetic ratios to favor
changes in specific traits of a species, such as genetically-controlled
behavioral traits, external morphology, and internal physiology.  Training
only alters the adaptable behaviors of an individual animal, which is not
passed on genetically--each individual must be individually trained.
 
What this means is, if you take a trained population, the offspring will
still need to be trained otherwise they will be identical to their wild
counterparts.  There are scores of animals that illustrate this, such as
circus animals, performing raptors, or trained elephants.  There are no
differences in the genetics of the offspring from the wild population, and
indeed, excluding a propensity for allowing a trainer to put their head in
their mouth, a trained lion is nothing more than a tamed-down wild animal
that has been conditioned to perform a few tricks for food.
 
Domestication is quite different, although initially they may look similar.
Domestication is an evolutionary process in which one species has been
changed into another through the control of reproduction, and where the
selective process is no longer natural or sexual selection but is now
human selection.  The selective breeding shifts the gene frequencies of a
species, such as the European polecat, so that some aspect of its phenotype
has been changed, resulting in a new species--the domesticated ferret.
With the ferret example, changes in vision, coat color, skull morphology,
brain structure, fear behavior, social behaviors, and sexual reproduction
are evidence of split away from the polecat ancestor.  They are true
changes because they are heritable; that is, they can be passed down to
offspring.  That is not true with training.
 
To use a human example, learning your ABCs is the equivilent of training.
Even if mommy and daddy can recite the alphabet, the baby *still* has to
learn it on its own.  The domestication of humans has resulted in a smaller
face and larger forehead; both are passed on to offspring.  You can train a
wild OR a domesticated species, but only a species with genetic differences
(amid other criteria) can be considered domesticated.
 
As for your comments about dogs and cats not attacking infants, you are way
off on that one.  The government keeps statistics on deaths, and babies
and tottlers are quite often killed by dogs, even in their cribs.  I get a
journal called "The Journal of Forensic Science," which has requent reports
of infants being killed by dogs.  Cats, like ferrets, rarely kill babies,
but cats are quite notorious for tearing the hell out of them--biting and
scratching.  Both these species tear up children far more frequently than
ferrets do on a "per-animal" basis.  As for the "carnivorous" nature of
ferret attacks, simply search a good forensic sciences data base, and you
will find scores of reports of dogs consuming humans, from babies to
adults.  I have a report that documents a murdered person being nearly
consumed by a domesticated dog pack.  You need new glasses to see the
dartboard on that one.
 
Your remarks that the ferret is not very domesticated ignored those
well-documented genetic changes that are recognized by scientists and
lay-persons alike.  There are scientifically-defined criteria to determine
if an animal is domesticated or not, and the ferret clearly mets those
criteria.  It lives in a human environment, its reproduction is under human
control, it has differences in its body, brain, bones and physiology, and
it is used to serve human purpose.  It fits every requirement agreed upon
by intelligent and trained scientific professionals, which is why only the
CaCa Fishing Gestapo argues its a wild animal.  Now Ed, you might
occasionally wear a WWI German helmet, but that hardly puts you into the
CaCa Land Definition of a Fishing Gestapo agent.  You are far more
intelligent and better looking!
 
>The *RATE* of change is correlated to the *DEGREE* of selection and its
>*INTENSITY*, and therefore is not time dependant."
 
Sorry about your misunderstanding on this one; perhaps I should have
explained it better.  Of course rate is change over time and if it was
the controlling factor, then all species would change at the same rate,
including domestic species.  But that clearly isn't so; the fact that dogs
have been domesticated for 20-50,000 years, yet almost all breeds have
developed in the last few centuries disproves that idea.  Since I was
specifically explaining why the number of breeds is not correlated to the
length of time of their domestication, I pointed out that the rate of
change, that is, the increase in new breeds, is not a function of time,
that is, the length of domestication.  In other words, the number of breeds
in not time dependent, that is, a function of time.
 
A slightly different way to look at it is to understand that since time
passes at the same rate for ferrets and dogs (or at least for us, the
outside observer), it can be considered a constant in their comparison.
Mathematically, because time is a constant on both sides of the equation
(ferrets Vs.  dogs), simplification allows time to be eliminated.  That
dosn't mean time is suspended or factually eliminated, its just not a
variable which influences the answer.  That means the answer is not time
dependent, but rather dependent on some other variable, such as how hard
you are trying to produce a breed, and the intensity of inbreeding.
 
My mistake was in not explaining it well or making those connections
clear, probably in my efforts to keep the post under the FML line limit.
I apologize for the confusion.
 
Bob C and 20 MO Raisin Dependent Mouse Munchers
[Posted in FML issue 2558]