Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election are now open!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Talk:Unguided evolution

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon evolution.svg

This Evolution related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Under alternatives we have:

  • "A common phrase that seems difficult to deail with."

What does this mean?--Rationalist 16:16, 12 February 2009 (EST)

The Yahoo Answers ref goes part way to explain it. Basically, it's difficult to deal with because it's an unending cycle. You can't deal with people who say "The Bible says it, it must be true" because they can only think of what the Bible says. You can't change the Bible, therefore you can't change their mind. Scarlet A.pngsshole 17:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob M's recent edits[edit]

It would appear that a certain member of our Gang of Four has been deluding himself that "science" and "atheism" are synonyms. I shall have to fisk his recent edits to this article one by one.

  • [1] — It is entirely outside the purview of science to make judgments on supernatural matters. To state that evolution was unguided is to make such a judgment; this is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, and by definition it is not an integral part of evolution theory.
Also, last I checked, atheists made up some 1-2% of the population. Unless almost all of the theistic population are creationists (which I doubt), or unless they are almost all pagans adhering to a tradition with no creator deity (which they are not), it follows that they believe in some form of divine guidance, whether in the form of a Spinozistic deus sive natura setting the world in motion, or a more active theistic intervention. On the other hand, there is a solid atheist majority among hard scientists.
  • [2] — Again, there is absolutely no scientific reason why evolution "must" be unguided.
  • [3] — Insisting that no supernatural forces were involved is also entirely unnecessary, from the scientific standpoint.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, atheists were at 10-20%. Got a cite for your pretend statistic? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about the avowed atheists, rather than the merely irreligious, who often describe themselves as "spiritual." Here is a cite. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
if science is understood to be methodological naturalism then specifying no supernatural causes is redundant. I dont agree that most scientists are athiest, they may follow the naturalistic method when doing science while being devout followers of something. Evolution is unguided if by guided you mean an intelligence, and guided only in a sense that natural selection will only be observed on traits that make the animal (or plant) less successful in reproduction. Hamster (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing methodological with philosophical naturalism. In methodological naturalism, specifying "no supernatural causes" is disallowed; one must not make reference to supernatural causes at all. This is analogous to the distinction between agnosticism and strong atheism. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I was removing Lx's earlier contributions which suggested that the idea that there might be some non material element in the process of evolution. This looked like he was pushing some non-materialist POV.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You know very well that I was not doing that. I was merely drawing a distinction between the scientific and unscientific parts of the "unguided evolution" idea. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No, you were trying to introduce some sort of magical "guidance" into evolution.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the article after I finished with my edits. I challenge you to find one place in it where I suggested that "magical guidance" had anything to do with the scientific theory of evolution. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it was better before you confused everything by shoe-horning some sort of philosophical crap into it. Scarlet A.pngsshole 08:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC - ADK was much more concise!) Erm, Mr X, the whole point of the crucial points of science is that it doesn't invoke magic. The edit in your first link is entirely justified - that was the whole point of Darwin's original theory; natural selection can naturally carry out the tasking of the previously assumed (and still assumed by some) sky-based magician. The second edit is justified because evolution isn't poncy philosophy, but cold, hard, boring, methodical science. (Oh and yes, that table does exist). Also, when Einstein spoke of 'God' and suchlike, he always meant it in a far from literal sense. Also I'm not aware of him discussing evolution, guided or otherwise. The third edit is spot on, that's exactly what it is about; the evidence for evolution is simply too strong to continue to deny, but I'm going to shoe-horn my god in to it somehow. Why not knock up an article on "guided germ theory"? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 08:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It is entirely outside the purview of science to make judgments on supernatural matters. - Except to say that the supernatural doesn't exist. Or at least doesn't interfere with reality, because if it did it would have a natural component that could be measured. We don't see that component, therefore the super part can be inferred not to exist.
  • Again, there is absolutely no scientific reason why evolution "must" be unguided. - That's what the theory says. "Must" is probably the wrong word, "is unguided" is better.
  • Insisting that no supernatural forces were involved is also entirely unnecessary, from the scientific standpoint. When a large percentage of the population believes there are, when there's no real evidence for that, then it does. Also, it would have to considering that the previous theory was special creation, and new theories always have to do three things 1) explain previous observations 2) explain new observations 3) explain why the old theory didn't explain the new observations. In which case, specific attention to supernatural causes is justifiable in this case. Scarlet A.pngsshole 09:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Not only is evolution "unguided" - so is chemistry and physics and any other scientific subject you care to mention. Once it stops being "unguided" it stops being naturalistic science.--77.208.224.241 (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Large round of replies[edit]

It seems that we had a misunderstanding, and that most of you mistook the general notion of supernatural involvement for the much more specific idea of miraculous supernatural involvement. This is an area in which many atheists are laboring under a misapprehension: they seem to have got it into their heads that the supernatural can act only by miracle. This is a highly incomplete conception of the supernatural, excluding such beliefs as those of deists, who do not believe in miracles.

I was certainly not suggesting that the inclusion of miracles could be in any way squared with the scientific theory of evolution; people who believe in miracles in that area would fall under the headers of "Creationism" and "Intelligent design."

...evolution isn't poncy philosophy, but cold, hard, boring, methodical science. That is true. Atheists who claim that this science supports their philosophical beliefs concerning the lack of (non-miraculous) "guidance" are as much in error as creationists with their watchmaker argument; these are both instances of inferring a belief about the supernatural from natural facts and pretending that such inference is scientific.

Except to say that the supernatural doesn't exist. To which I can only reply: You are wrong. Methodological naturalism precludes any reference to the supernatural, even to deny its existence. What it can do, however, is exclude the possibility of miracles; that was the framework's original purpose, when Christian natural philosophers formulated it.

...if it did it would have a natural component that could be measured. This is untrue, entirely reliant on the premise that supernatural beings can act only by miracle. If the supernatural entities did not perform miracles, instead acting entirely in conformance with natural law, no scientific measurement could detect them.

Well, it was better before you confused everything by shoe-horning some sort of philosophical crap into it. As I said, I was separating the scientific and philosophical parts of "unguided evolution." Conclusions such as "the supernatural did not guide the evolutionary process," do not appear in scientific papers, which focus exclusively on natural questions.

When a large percentage of the population believes there are, when there's no real evidence for that, then it does. What the population believes has absolutely no relevance to scientific questions, and I take exception to anyone who says otherwise.

Once it stops being "unguided" it stops being naturalistic science. Uh, not exactly. When it starts making any claims about guidance (at least, non-miraculous guidance), whether to confirm or deny it, it ceases to be science.

Well, it was better before you confused everything by shoe-horning some sort of philosophical crap into it. The "philosophical crap" was there before I edited the article. It seems I rattled somebody's cage by pointing out its presence.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Could ListenerX be a sock of PJR or is this Gish Gallop simply an accidental parody? We should be told!--False Flag (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you call a supernatural being that interferes with the world non-miraculously? A natural being. This is merely twisting goalposts to satisfy the fact people want gods to exist without risking their existence being disproved. If a supernatural being interferes with the world via a miracle, it will be detected as a miracle, i.e., a violation of all known and possible naturalistic laws, defying any consistent explanation in both practice and principle. If it interferes without a miracle, it becomes indistinguishable from nature itself and it cannot be detected or "not" detected; its existence or otherwise becomes moot a la Russel's teapot. By definition, a supernatural being must interact with the world miraculously. It doesn't matter how flashy or visual the miracle is, causing chemical bonds to break within DNA is just as miraculous as animals appearing out of nowhere in a magical creation event, it is still miraculous. Scarlet A.pngsshole 12:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no, natural beings are much more restricted in scope than supernatural beings, even supernatural beings that do not perform miracles. One point of difference is that some supernatural beings, as conceived, exist outside the universe and natural law.
If it interferes without a miracle, it becomes indistinguishable from nature itself and it cannot be detected or "not" detected. As far as science is concerned, that is true; however, the purview of science is limited in that regard. An analogy is with the Turing test: even if the judge (scientists) cannot tell the difference between a person and a machine (supernatural vs. natural causes) by chatting via the text-only interface (the scientific method), it quite certainly does not follow that a person is indistinguishable from a machine. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of duplicating the discussion below Lx states, at the start of his defence:
  • (Atheists) seem to have got it into their heads that the supernatural can act only by miracle. This is a highly incomplete conception of the supernatural, excluding such beliefs as those of deists, who do not believe in miracles.
Apart from the fact that I would imagine that this position is not exclusive to athiests, I would like him to give an example of a supernatural act which is not miraculous.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, there is quite a history in Christianity of a distinction made between miracles and non-miraculous works of God (i.e., "creation," the universe, which is why entire generations of natural philosophers believed that they were learning more about God by studying nature). The Protestant Reformation put a bit of a damper on this because of sola scriptura, but the tradition is there. The other Abrahamic traditions have similar ideas. Miracles form a distinct minority of divine actions in paganism with its pantheons of nature-deities, and are completely absent from deism and pantheism. That covers most if not all non-atheistic religions.
I gave you your example already: the beliefs of deists. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that the divine creation of a universe wouldn't be miraculous?--BobSpring is sprung! 07:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No more miraculous than the atheistic version, where it came into existence of its own accord. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Leaving your comparison aside for one moment, you agree then, that the divine creation of a new universe would a miraculous act by that divine being?--BobSpring is sprung! 08:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
As the division is between the miraculous and non-miraculous rather than the natural and supernatural, we cannot consider the actor, but only the act: can the process of the universe coming into existence be called miraculous? The answer: no, because science has filled in enough of the blanks to determine that it came into existence with no breach of natural law. That remains non-miraculous regardless of supernatural involvement, regardless of whether it was effected by the deus sive natura or happened of its own accord. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You are really getting into Not Even Wrong territory here. If you cannot distinguish between things then they are indistinguishable. That's what these words mean. There is nothing about "science being limited", it's about reality itself being limited. This "beyond the purview of science" escape hatch is just silly. If it's beyond science it's not part of reality and cannot affect reality and has no affect on us: i.e., it doesn't exist. No "oh it's beyond science" bullshit is going to change that. Also, your Turing Test example is highly misused because it is entirely in reference to the ability to communicate leading to the establishment of consciousness - not saying that a computer becomes a person, because their mechanism of consciousness may be different and their physical existence would also be different. So if a computer can 100% imitate a human via text-only communication (to otherwise level the physical playing field), it is effectively as alive as we are because there is no other way to prove a human is conscious except by communication. It would be fallacious special pleading to hold a computer to a different standard. I suppose by your odd reasoning that different electrons are also distinguishable, when they blatantly aren't. Scarlet A.pngsshole 12:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
If you cannot distinguish between things then they are indistinguishable. True, but what I actually said was that it is fallacious to conclude that things are indistinguishable in all particulars just because science cannot distinguish between them. One illustrative example of this fallacy: had we been talking about this a few hundred years ago, you would not have been saying that all electrons are indistinguishable; you would have been saying that all atoms are indistinguishable, partially because atoms were (for a time) beyond the capacity of scientists to observe and hence to distinguish between. However, we now know, based on new means of distinction, that not all atoms are indistinguishable.
If it's beyond science it's not part of reality and cannot affect reality and has no affect [sic] on us: i.e., it doesn't exist. Some people said something like that a while back: "Wir müssen wissen; Wir werden wissen." News flash: Logical positivism is a pile of bunk.
You might have to rephrase your ramblings about the Turing test, because I do not understand them. I say this, because I do not believe you would actually say something as absurd as what you seem to be saying, viz., that a person is only conscious if other people can "prove" that consciousness. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is to say, a majority of evolution supporters are theists and a majority of hard-scientists are atheists[edit]

Got data? P-Foster (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here for the first. For the second, I believe there was some study showing that 92% of hard-scientists are atheists, but I do not have a reference. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Wait, a table of all the world's religions? I don 't see anything about evolution in that. P-Foster (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Avowed atheists make up about 1% of the world's population. The proportion of evolution supporters is significantly higher. Therefore, there are many more theistic supporters of evolution. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is the scientist study. It is on members of the National Academy of Sciences, showing that only 7% were theists. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
So you'll change the reference to read "American scientists," then? P-Foster (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
LX, that's pisspoor logic. You can do better than that. Don't do WP:SYNTH. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC) I think one would find somewhat similar numbers worldwide (it looks like the U.S. scientist population, which would have every reason to be more theistic than the worldwide one, has consistently shown an atheist majority). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
SuspectedReplicant, this is not Wikipedia, and we do not forbid original research in our articles. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"I think one would find somewhat similar numbers worldwide." Shouldn't be too hard to find them, then. P-Foster (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Wikipedia, which tends to be rather thorough about these things, only seems to mention studies of U.S. scientists. Here are numbers for the U.S., showing theistic evolutionists outnumbering the atheistic ones about four to one in the general population, but atheists outnumbering theists among scientists. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

From this debate page I'm not sure of the issue under discussion. Are scientists more likely to be athiests? I'd imagine so, though I don't know.

But what difference does this make? If many scientists were YECs would that change the actual speed of light? The YECs might prefer a theory of "guided speed of light" whereby the speed of light were variable but that wouldn't change the established reality of physics.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Non miraculous miracles[edit]

Our text currently says: (admittedly after the addition of some snark of mine)

  • .... some supporters of theistic evolution who believe that a supernatural entity had some role in the evolutionary process, but somehow managed this without using miracles.

How does god intervene non-miraculously?--BobSpring is sprung! 11:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't by definition, really. If it's indistinguishable from naturalistic processes, then it may as well be naturalistic. If it violates natural laws to become miraculous, then it can be attributed to a supernatural entity and explained that way. Scarlet A.pngsshole 11:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. Before my added snark it simply read:
  • some supporters of theistic evolution who believe that a supernatural entity had some role in the evolutionary process, but did not use miracles.
This wording was obviously a contradiction in terms - in fact it still is. But given the strong reactions that scientific additions to this article seem to generate I thought that I'd mention it in some way on the talk page.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a contradiction, although in defence of it I suppose people do believe it. Science has been chipping away at the unknown for a while now, it's not surprising that religions (which did the explaining before we were able to do it accurately) are reshaping themselves to fit in with this knowledge. It's unsurprising, therefore, to see them twist into a way that is a little inconsistent. It works in people's heads, I'm sure, but when you think about it, it's just a really odd thing to say. In which case I think the snark version portrays it most accurately, although I think it needs referenced to anyone specifically saying it's non-miraculous, if pushed theistic evolutionists will admit it is miraculous. For instance, literally pushing atoms around in genes to cause mutations. It isn't a *poof!" special creation, hence "non-miraculous" works as rhetoric just to explain the difference, but it's still wrong by definition. Scarlet A.pngsshole 12:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
When you say miracles, most people will generally think of more visually impressive stuff. ТyTalk. 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess they do. But surely if god reaches down from heaven to move a mountain or a cell it's still a miracle isn't it? Or should there be some other word for divine cellular manipulations?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No. Because a supernatural being doing anything would be a miracle. Just people don't bother to think that through. Or they do, and are annoyingly New-Agey.ТyTalk. 12:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
People here are still holding firmly to the idea that there is no supernatural hand in any event not involving a breach of the laws of physics. This does not even come close to covering the full range of people's beliefs about the supernatural, and might well be regarded as a straw man.
I have used this analogy before, but many conceptions of supernatural acts can be likened unto a deity turning the crank that makes the universe run, rather than the deity reaching in and meddling with the gears. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
so if a "God" is cranking to make the universe run , then shouldn't science be able to show an energy input or deficit and thus prove the supernatural ? That sort of makes "God" a battery or wind up motor. Hamster (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Let us put aside for the moment your apparent inability to tell the difference between an analogy and a literal factual claim. Creationists claim that there is such an energy input. They further claim that this is proven by the second law of thermodynamics and the uneven distribution of energy in the universe. They are spouting a pile of bunk; whether the machine is being cranked or it is a perpetual-motion automaton, by definition it all looks the same to the scientist. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Analogies are always problematic but when you make them to further your point then people are likely to take you up on them. You wrote: supernatural acts can be likened unto a deity turning the crank that makes the universe run, rather than the deity reaching in and meddling with the gears.
Yet , when you were challenged on your analogy you dismissed it as only being an analogy. I think you should either clarify where the energy comes from to power the crank and explain how it could be detected (or why it can't) or abandon the analogy.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Do not make me use a Simple English translator here. If an analogy is drawn between concept A and concept B, there are necessarily some similarities between A and B, but also necessarily some differences between the two (otherwise it would not be an analogy). I was attempting to get across the difference between influencing a system in accordance with its established rules of operation (i.e., turning the machine's crank) and influencing a system in violation of those rules (i.e., meddling with the gears). Among the many differences between the universe and the machine is that the machine requires an input of energy, while the universe does not have such input. Hamster seized upon this completely irrelevant difference and then commenced to regurgitate some creationist dreck about being able to prove God's existence by the energy level in the universe. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 08:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
So your analogy doesn't mean that god puts energy into the universe, and it doesn't mean that god interferes in the universe. At least, if I understand you correctly. But if it doesn't mean these two things - what then does it mean?--BobSpring is sprung! 08:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
LX, have you noticed you are making an idiot out of yourself in your desire to prove that Odin keeps the universe running? You can't even identify what "supernatural" means, as far as I can tell. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop raving, please, Human: (1) I am in the unguided camp on this question; (2) I am a hard polytheist and do not believe in any overarching God running the universe.
Bob, a concrete example of "turning the crank" has already been given: God tailor-making the laws of physics to ensure that their (uniform, miracle-free) operation will bring about the evolution of humanity. An example of "meddling with the gears" is God speeding up the rate of radioactive decay as per the RATE committee's delusions. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Then your analogy is even worse. "Turning the crank" implies the continuous input of "something" (it the real world motion or energy) but now it seems to represent a one-time miraculous creation of law. If "creating the laws of physics" isn't a miracle I really don't know what is.
Also, the purpose of an analogy is to make things clearer. The introduction of the "holy crank" simply obscures even more whatever point you are trying to make. It generates more confusion than it removes.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"some supporters of theistic evolution who believe that a supernatural entity had some role in the evolutionary process, but somehow managed this without using miracles.

How does god intervene non-miraculously?" This sounds like "not even wrong" territory to me. Or maybe more like the Auditors of Reality. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems there are two explanations. A belief that god is the holy crank, or a belief that that explanation is wholly crank.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The Auditors of Reality are one possible conception of non-miraculous intervention (although their manifestations, which are the only way their existence becomes known to the world, are not). Natural law is a "black box" to science; its effects can be studied, but not its inner workings. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
So ... a good example of what you are trying to say about "non-miraculous miracles" is provided by characters who are not only fictional but also magical in the Discworld novels? These fictional/magical characters somehow demonstrate magical - though non-miraculous - intervention? I don't see how - especially when the only interventions they make ("manifestations") you then explicitly exclude from your definition. I'm afraid that your response is beyond baffling.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Had you taken the bother of reading what I said, you would have noted that I drew a distinction between the non-miraculous and miraculous acts of the Auditors of Reality; the non-miraculous acts being the orderly running of the universe, the miraculous ones being their manifestations. Their non-miraculous role was what I was citing as the example. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet[edit]

Yet somehow the invisible hand is voodoo. 95.14.136.191 (talk)

Evolution is guided[edit]

... to some extent.

By the past - for example, because the surviving species of the process of water-to-land animal evolution had five 'fingers' and four 'limbs' (using terms for their modern equivalents) rather than 'different numbers of each' their descendants have limb structures based on those combinations (even if some limbs and digits have since been lost).

By the environment - the particular mix of what forms the Earth and the light spectrum of the sun etc.

By other creatures - the 17-year locusts (and whatever preditor they were evading by this tactic), and mimicry, as much as humans.

There are a few other examples besides.

And humans are 'a pattern creating species' - so some of the evidence of guided evolution is a product of the way we see the world. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

as I would read the term, "guided" always infers conscious input and / or intent. the water in a river flows a particular way, but it would be wrong to say it was "guided" that way. On the other hand, a guide will navigate that river, consciously choosing a path that is best for his customers.Green mowse.pngGodot Chúc mừng năm mới 16:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was making the point that there are 'mechanical reasons' for evolution to go in some ways rather than others.

There is some guided evolution - by humans at least.

What is the name of the insects I describe (and relatives of other periodocity)? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a belief in beekeeping circles that humans selected for mediocre honey production, by killing the lightest and heaviest colonies at honey harvest time. That was in the old days, when bees were kept in basket skeps instead of box hives. Nowadays, properly done harvesting doesn't kill very many of the little darlings, and bee genetics are pretty well studied.
That locust is a species of cicadaWikipedia's W.svg, I believe. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So would 'constrained evolution' be a more appropriate term here? At what point in human history can our ancestors be said to have started guiding evolution? Anna Livia (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)