3 ms·

I wouldn't, because a fruit bred to be bigger and juicier is engineered by humans for their own benefit, while an elephant evolving to not have tusks is evoluti

I wouldn't, because a fruit bred to be bigger and juicier is engineered by humans for their own benefit, while an elephant evolving to not have tusks is evolution going against human benefit. I believe natural selection includes the influence of any species related to the species in question as predator or prey, and humans in this case are predators. We may historically be responsible for far more processes of natural selection than we're aware of! You're right that it's exceedingly rare to see us so directly play a role in natural selection today (as opposed to indirectly through affecting the environment), which makes this very interesting.

isoskeles 5y ago
I’m not sure where the distinction between “natural” or “artificial” selection is, or if it matters. But it seems clear that humans and our technology are capable of creating far more pressure for other species to either evolve or die if we target them for some reason. If it weren’t for us hunting these elephants for their tusks, there isn’t a reason they’d evolve in this manner. So I just wouldn’t call that evolution by natural selection. Same thing if we set off to exterminate all mosquitoes. But I do get your point. I’m conflicted if we can count ourselves as any other predator species when discussing evolution.