Let me point out a few misconceptions regarding evolution.  Simply put,
evolution is defined as change over time.  Anything can evolve; it isn't
specifically limited to living creatures, thus you can discuss the evolution
of automobile design, or the Spencerian concept of cultural evolution.  As
I delight in pointing out to my friends who advocate the religious right,
even Christianity evolved from Judism, as well as the concept of spiritual
punishment, which evolved from the "eye-for-an-eye" doctrine to the
"turn-the-cheek" philosophy.  Because domestic animals have been changed
over time, then domestication is a form of evolution.  In other words,
evolution is real because domestication proves the process; it proves
animals are not immutable, and can change from one form to another because
of various selectionist pressures.
 
Another misconception is that only certain types of animals can be
domesticated.  Wrong.  *ANY* animal (or organism) can be domesticated; you
may not be able to domesticate a deer to hunt rabbits, and the costs of
domestication may outweigh the benefits, but they are still domesticatable.
Also, sometimes you will read than an animal "domesticated itself," often
used to describe the origins of dogs, cats or mice.  Since, as already
discussed, to become domesticated the animal has to have evolved under human
selection, animals simply cannot domesticate themselves.  They can adapt to
human presence and environmental changes and benefit from them, but they are
not by any means domesticated.
 
Sometimes you might see the term "semi-domesticated," which is usually used
by people lacking a coherent understanding of the process of domestication.
It is a term without a real definition, for it could mean "in the process of
domestication," or "partially domesticated," or even "starting to be
domesticated." Since organisms that are either in the process of
domestication or partially domesticated still fill the criteria for
domestication (see below), then they are, in fact, domesticated.  Besides,
like evolution, domestication has no definable end; that is, even though
changes have been made, some more *could* be made.  For example, domestic
dogs were first domesticated 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.  They are
considered domesticated for that entire period of time, yet nearly all
modern breeds are only a few hundred years old.  Does that mean for
thousands of years the dog was "semi-domesticated?" The same thing is true
for cats and cattle.  The term is meaningless.
 
Finally, there is a major difference between "tamed" and "domesticated." A
tamed animal has been conditioned to tolerate a human presence, but, aside
from conditioning, the animal is in all respects the same as other wild
members of its species.  A domesticated animal may also need to be
tamed--anyone who picked up a feral barn cat or approached a wild horse
knows exactly what I mean--but they are different in that their evolution is
under human selection rather than under natural selection.  So just because
an animal is domesticated, it doesn't mean it inherently loves people, and
both domesticated mink and fox prove the point.  So what exactly is a good
definition of domestication?
 
Honestly, there are numerous definitions, but if you compare them all, three
criteria seem to be important.  The organism's breeding must be under human
control, the organism must have some sort of change from the ancestral
species, and the organism must provide a service or product that is
benefical to humans.  Some argue only the first of the criteria
(human-controlled breeding, or human selection) is important, the second
criteria is a result, and the third a reason for domestication.  I reject
such arguments because zoo animals are clearly under human breeding control,
yet are not domesticated (although, if we are not careful, such an event can
most certainly occur, especially with endangered species such as the
black-footed ferret).  Therefore, the best possible definition of
domestication would include all three criteria.
 
So, simply put, domestication is the process by which human selection causes
changes in an organism which are intended for human benefit or advantage.
This definition is congruent with most of the most popular definitions of
domestication, and is not likely to fall under the scrutiny of the Ca Ca
Fishing Gestapo.  So, are ferrets domesticated?
 
Ferrets are certainly under human control when it comes to breeding.  In
fact, in the United States, only a very tiny percentage of ferrets ever
breed; the vast majority are neutered prior to sexual maturation.  Ferrets
do not have control over their breeding; humans do, so ferrets fill the
breeding requirement nicely.
 
Ferrets also provide many benefits and advantages to human beings, ranging
from ratting and mousing (pest control) to ferreting (food production) to
experimentation (veterinary and biomedicine) to pets (companionship).  Each
of these are direct services which assume a finacial worth as well as a
consumer demand, so the breeding of ferrets is also a benefit (economics).
It is clear ferrets fit this criteria quite well.
 
As for some sort of change in the ferret caused by human-controlled
breeding, many scientists have described changes in ferrets, including
changes in behavior, skull morphology, reproductive cycle and vison (which I
will detail in the next post).  These changes are as great or greater than
between the wildcat and the house cat, therefore it is safe to assume the
ferret fits this criteria as well.
 
Since the ferret easily fits all criteria needed to be considered
domesticated, that is, human controlled breeding, changes from the ancestral
species, and being a benefit to humans, then it is safe to conclude the
ferret is as domesticated as any other domesticated species.  In other
words, the ferret is not "wild," it is not "semi-domesticated," it is not
"tamed."  The ferret is domesticated.
 
Bob C and 19 MO Carpet Clawers (In Memory of Simon)
[Posted in FML issue 2385]