> Maybe it's just me, but saying "artificially" selected traits aren't adaptive is itself a bit of a misnomer.

Hi there
It isn't just you. This is an extremely complex, difficult question. The first problem is in the word "adaptation" which can be used in various senses: the scientific, the general, etc. The two paragraphs I cited were but excerpts from a nearly 400 page book on the topic of "Adaptation and Complex Design." 

And yes, in a sense, domesticated creatures are adapted to the conditions in which they live. The more adaptable the creature, the more likely it is to be domesticated. For example, some honey bee species (A. dorsata) are not kept in hives, as they won't stay.

But beyond that, the whole series of books, which now includes nine volumes, is titled "In the Light of Evolution." This phrase was coined by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his 1973 commentary entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Evolution underlies everything we do and everything we are.

So, domestication is made possible by the mechanisms of evolution, as I stated before. Whether artificial selection is biologically distinct from natural selection, or merely a semantic distinction depends on your point of view. When we talk about breeding, we are referring to selected traits that we regard as "improvements." 

Some of these traits may enhance the survivability of the organisms and some are aesthetic. I suppose the true test would be: do the traits enhance survival in the wild, or do these bred creatures require constant care by humans? Furthermore, are the traits really durable changes in the genome, or do they quickly fade after a few generations of out-crossing?

PLB

see
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11790/in-the-light-of-evolution-volume-i-adaptation-and-complex

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html