Thank you Elizabeth for this opportunity-
Good day- Over the past many, many years, IDists have been telling people that intelligent design is not anti-evolution. Most people understand and accept that, while others just refuse to, no matter what.
With that said, in this post I will provide the evidence (again) that firmly demonstrates that ID is not anti-evolution. I will be presenting several authoritative definitions of “evolution” followed by what the ID leadership has to say about evolution. So without any further adieu, I give you-
Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution
”.
In order to have a discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design is anti-evolution or not we must first define “evolution”. Fortunately there are resources available that do just that.
Defining “evolution”:
Finally, during the evolutionary synthesis, a consensus emerged: “Evolution is the change in properties of populations of organisms over time”- Ernst Mayr page 8 of “What Evolution Is”
Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable’ via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans. Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. PBS series “Evolution” endorsed by the NCSE
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations) UC Berkley
In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Evolution- in biology, the word means genetically based change in a line of descent over time.- Biology: Concepts and Applications Starr 5th edition 2003 page 10
Those are all accepted definitions of biological “evolution”. (Perhaps someone will present some definitions that differ from those. Most likely I will only comment on any differences if the differences are relevant.)
With biology, where-ever there is heritable genetic change there is evolution and where-ever you have offspring that are (genetically) different from the parent(s) you have descent with modification.
Next I will show what Intelligent Design says about biological evolution and people can see for themselves that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution:
Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism (MAY 2000)
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”- Dr Michael Behe
Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.
Then we have:
What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?– a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.
Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of “The Design of Life”
and
And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life). Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.– page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution- they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent”:
9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.
ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence. To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.
However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.
They go on to say:
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.
CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that. ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.
And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison)- both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.
Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, ie they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” ala Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.
As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution- the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis)
Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic.
Now we are left with the only way Intelligent Design can be considered anti-evolution is if and only if the only definition of evolution matches the definition provided for materialistic evolution. However I cannot find any source that states that is the case.
So the bottom line is Intelligent Design says “evolved, sure”. The questions are “evolved from what?” and “how did it evolve?
I’m not sure about the point you were trying to make, and the paper says nothing about the egg membrane passing on heritable traits, but that paper is amazing!… in that it lacks any connection to reality. Vertebrate embryogenesis doesn’t happen like Pivart says. Just open any textbook and compare the photos with the figures on the paper. You fell for a crank.
Joe G,
Because you are increasing the number of cells in the organism by several trillion. So, you are claiming that every single cell is exactly the same as every other cell in (for example) a human body and that everyone is exactly the same as in the original zygote? (Same as in genetic sequence)
This claim is easily demonstrably wrong. The mere existence of chimeras proves this wrong… and cancer, which are are arguably more fit than normal human cells… in the exact same way that that one jerk who bypasses the line and dives into the turning late almost causing an accident. He is not acting for the benefit of the whole, but for himself. Since he gets where he’s going faster, he’s more fit than all the people that stayed in line.
You are assuming that cancers are less fit than the normal cells. As it is trivial to show, they are actually more fit. They reproduce faster, consume resources without having to perform their function, etc. At a cellular level, they are more fit. the fact that they generally kill the organism is of no concern.
Further, you might perhaps look up ‘insertions in cancers’ and learn something. In point of fact, several cancers form from insertion events… increasing the total size of the genome.
Once again, you conflate “meaning” with “information”. If it weren’t for that… and your stubborn refusal to understand why the ‘blind watchmaker’ analogy of evolution is wrong, then you might have a chance.
I don’t believe you. You can’t explain why this is so. Dembski can’t explain why this is so. Until you actually man up and explain why, then you assertions are just claims with zero evidence… again (and still).
You still don’t understand that random data is capable of conveying meaning. In fact, the entire encryption industry is based on that simple truth.
That’s the reason that ID can’t deal with anything. YOU MUST KNOW IN ADVANCE IF THE OBJECT UNDER STUDY IS DESIGNED.
Ninakula : Hatkoli One of these words is designed, one is random. You cannot use ID principles to determine which is which. Therefore, in the simplest possible language, ID is useless for the things you claim it to be useful for.
Until you can distinguish between designed and random, how can you possibly expect to distinguish between designed and evolved?
No, it doesn’t. Cite me a page number and I’ll look it up. Oh sure, Gorden claims it has to do with the amount of information in the solar system, but that’s hogwash too. Explain it. In your own words. I triple dog dare you.
But I know you can’t. You don’t understand it any more than GEM or even Dembski does. Because it’s meaningless. I’ve been telling you for a year now, I sit next to 8 people with Master’s degrees in math and I can pick up the phone and call 5 people with Ph.D.s in statistical analysis. All I need is the explanation and we’ll run through for you. But you know it would never work. So you won’t even try.
My position, whatever you think it is, doesn’t have to account for any CSI because CSI is undefined and, until you people prove otherwise, does not exist as a quantifiable measurement.
BTW: Thanks for the standard comeback. I was betting with Rich how long it would take you… I think he won with one post.
Wow, you can do simple math, I’m in awe. I totally misjudged you. So, what you are saying is that any sequence of ASCII text over 71 characters is designed.
That is what you are saying? But a string of ASCII text 70 characters long is not designed. 72 = designed. 69 = not designed.
Is it possible to have a string longer than 71 characters that is not designed? Is it possible to have a string shorter than 71 characters that is designed?
If so (and it is!), how does this affect CSI… which you still have yet to show actually exists.
Anyway, enjoy not answering.
I disagree that natural selection is a result. The result is changes in the allele frequency in the population. The cause of that is natural selection (or genetic drift or any of a variety of other processes). Selection is a process.
Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow…
It’s time to build a snowman with the fam…
So simple.
But natural selection is not a RESULT. I can’t point to something and say “that’s natural selection”. Selection, by definition is a process.
For natural selection to occur, you must have variation, differential survival, passing of trait.
but we’re into semantics again. Words can mean anything when ID is involved.
Joe, check out your own link, page 3:
You wrote:
And the only difference between Darwinian evolution (note that your link actually calls it “Darwinian invention” is that in a GA, usually, the virtual environment is designed so that the evolving population will evolve to solve a specific problem that the GA writer/user wants a solution to, as in artificial selection (e.g. breeding long thin dogs to go down badger setts), whereas in natural selection, the problems are simply presented by natural environment.
So a dachhund breeder who breeds only from the longest and thinnest dogs is simply an intentional breeder – an environment that has juciy badgeers at the end of long thin tunnels is doing the same thing naturally.
So if you think that ID essentially is the notion that an ID designed the terrestrial environment (as a human GA designer designs her virtual environment) so that th evolving critters would embody the solution to some specified problem would be solved, then, fine. You are a theistic evolutionist 🙂
But that’s still Darwinian evolution. It just happens to take place, as in a GA, in a designed environment, and the designer happens to have a problem s/he wants solved. Or a kind of critter she wants to see evolve.
Perhaps the ID designed our world so that people capable of recognising the ID would evolve within it.
I wrote a story about that, once 🙂
What’s the definition? Oh yes, complex specified information. By definition, it must be complex and specified.
Are you saying that randomness cannot generate anything complex? Are you saying that randomness cannot generate anything specified?
Again, in this case as in all others, Joe, YOU MUST KNOW whether the thing you are talking about was designed BEFORE you can determine if it has CSI. But if it’s designed, then it has a designer. Duh…
Circular reasoning. “It was designed because it has CSI. It has CSI because it was designed.”
OK, fine. Show me the agency that designed something. Oh yeah, you guys aren’t interested in the agency, merely claiming that there is one.
Whatever
Bull cookies. Every time I have challenged you on this, you have run away never to respond. I have provided you with DOZENS of strings of ASCII characters generated by random processes. Yet, you say that can’t happen.
Oh, sure ASCII was designed by humans. Text generated from randomly turning bits on and off however, was not designed. As usual, you are confused. This is exactly the same thing as saying, “because a roulette wheel was designed, then all the results were also designed”
The simple fact that random strings of ASCII text exist proves you wrong… again.
Again, Joe, you are confused. We’re not talking about a situation in which ONLY something can be designed. Of course, you would assume a designer in that case.
But you cannot always assume a designer. That’s your major problem. You always assume a designer. Again, I can give you dozens of strings of ASCII text, or binary, or octal, or whatever you like that is completely random.
Heck, I can even give you a string of completely random ASCII text that is both complex and specified. Want to bet?
I keep telling you that CONTEXT is important with science, but you, being totally ignorant of science, just refuse to get it.
And yet you can’t accept that for yourself. You simply MUST know whether something is designed before you can say it has CSI. Which, results in circular reasoning… still.
Kevin,
I just produced references that say natural selection is a result. Thanks for proving that you are beyond help…
Elizabeth- NAMING something “Darwinian” does not make it so.
Are you serious? Just because they called it darwinian it’s darwinian and that’s that.
Really?
There is actual software running us- not the environment and the reactions taking place didn’t “just happen”.
Kevin,
Intelligent Design claims we can determine the difference between nature, operating freely and when agency involvement was required. Archaeology and forensic science also rely on that. YOUR position also relies on that.
And to refute any given design inference all someone has to do is step up and demonstrate nature, operating freely could produce it.
Why?
Chrome not like your buttons/JS so much. Never heard that word before. Somehow it got quoted as Joe 🙂
Joe, here’s a bit of Lifemanship. (It’s a bit like Oneupmanship, but you’re not ready for that yet) Just look on it as friendly advice.
If you want any shred of scientific credibility, don’t – DO NOT – holler up Pivar in support.
People will laugh, Joe – laugh like drains. As I am doing. I was so amused, I gave the dam’ cat a sardine (to make up for the chicken leg)
Just look him up. (Pivar, not the cat. Or the sardine)
Obviously calling something doesn’t make it so, Joe, but it does indicate that the writers of the you cited share my understanding of es “Darwinian evoltuoin” and they th) that the essentials of a GA are the essentials of Darwinin’s theory. Indeed, Darwin actually coined the term “natural selection” as analogous to “artificial selection, and a GA with a goal is “artificial selection”. The mechanism is the same in both cases, as are the results. The only difference is thal selection someone has actually planned the fitness landscape so as to solve a problem of their own, whereas in natural selection, the problems are directly set by the environment.
I know what Darwin did and there still isn’t any evidence for it- ie no evidence that NS is up to the task of AS. NS will take what AS has wrought and undo it.
This isn’t a coherent argument. Natural selection can undo what natural selection has previously done. (Well understood example: finch beak sizes.) Likewise, artificial selection can undo what artificial selection has previously done. (You can select for one trait and then reverse the selection.) That does not invalidate artificial selection, does it? 🙂
How do you know natural selection produced the beak variations?
How do you what natural selection can do? What is your evidence?
BTW oleg- Darwin didn’t have a coherent argument- just speculation and promissory notes…
Ah, right. So your issue with evolution is simply that you do not think that things evolve in an undesigned environment? That while dachshunds could evolve if breeders only bred from longish dogs with short legs, but not if longish dogs with short legs tended to survive the best in a badger-rich environment?
What makes you think that adaptation has to be to an artificial set of fitness criteria?
Just pointing out, Joe, that Pivar’s ideas, shall we say, lack scientific credibility. In particular, his ideas on morphogenesis bear absolutely no relationship to that which is observed. They have been described as (to paraphrase) “a theory on the formation of balloon animals” – IIRC everything based on toroids. Now, if you want to go along with that, that’s fine. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.
C’mon, Joe, you can do better, surely. If ID is so compelling, there must be some solid science out there – you know, Rationale, Methods and Materials, Data/Results, Analysis, Conclusions – supporting it. What’s the problem finding and citing it?
And may I say you do yourself no favours with constant claims that evolution has no supporting evidence. Any twit can do a Google Scholar search on any relevant term, and turn up dozens/hundreds of papers.
Which is why we say, with some force, that IDists flatly ignore the ever-growing evidence supporting evolution.
If left to NS there wouldn’t be any dachshunds. AS can create the dachshund, but NS cannot.
NS can and will see to it the dachshunds are removed once man is gone.
Nice equivocation- ID is not anti-evolution. And tehre still isn’t any evidence in support of blind watchmaker evolution.
But anyway developmental biologists know that the egg and its membrane are very important to what, if anything, develops. If you take the DNA of one animal and put it into the egg of a totally different animal, either nothing fully develops or what develops will resemble the egg donor.
And damitall- Pivar’s paper is peer-reviewed and you have offered nothing to refute it.
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FIJA%2FS147355041000025Xa.pdf&code=218031dc3e2341a7ec9cdaa4de02bcf5
Pivar:
whoops!
“Peer”-reviewed in a journal of astrobiology. Why would Pivar submit his revolutionary theory about vertebrate development to reviewers from a completely different field?
Refutation is trivial: Compare actual photos of the development of human embryos and the figures of Pivar’s paper.
Really, Joe, make yourself a favour and drop Pivar. He doesn’t say what you said he did, and what he does say is crazy.
So – for the record, Joe. You find Pivar to be perfectly credible, are happy to cite him and he passes your benchmark for ‘good science’?
Geoxus,
developmental biologists understands there is more to heredity than DNA- they know the egg’s membrane and cytoskeleton play important roles.
So for the record Rich, you don’t understand much about developmental biology and you think that your lack of understanding means something.
I cited that paper as evidence that there is more to heritability than DNA- developmental biologists have known that for years and have known that the egg plays an important role
Yes, and that doesn’t say anything about GAs.
The GA would be part of the germ cell and that is how it is passed down to the next generation.
I answered it. Just because YOU don’t like the answer doesn’t mean I didn’t answer.
How do you know natural selection produced the beak variations?
How do you what natural selection can do? What is your evidence?
Joe G, even with ID’s standards, you’re overstating the case:
In fact, ID does not hold that Darwinian evolution can’t do anything. Rather it claims that natural selection can do some things, but not everything. ID proponents readily acknowledge (as Behe has) that “if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it.” The problem comes when multiple mutations are required to produce some new structure — and as Axe’s research shows, this is where Darwinian evolution typically gets stuck.
Joe G,
Could you be clear:
for the record, Joe. You find Pivar to be perfectly credible, are happy to cite him and he passes your benchmark for ‘good science’?
Thanks in advance.
That’s not a response to anything I’ve said.
It’s hard to put this in terms that are not Guano-worthy, but to cite Pivar speaks very poorly about one’s own knowledge about developmental biology.
And that paper says exactly nothing about traits being passed on or “stored” by egg membranes.
Apparently I can’t post any more.
Ticks eating watermelon, dragonflys playing and now:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2010/09/hes_baaaack_stuart_pivar_hasnt/pivar_limbs.php
Utter fiction.
I haven’t been able to post this:
That’s not a response to anything I’ve said.
It’s hard to put this in terms that are not Guano-worthy, but to cite Pivar speaks very poorly about one’s own knowledge about developmental biology.
And that paper says exactly nothing about traits being passed on or “stored” by egg membranes.
That’s not a response to anything I’ve said.
Joe G: So for the record Rich, you don’t understand much about developmental biology and you think that your lack of understanding means something.
It’s hard to put this in terms that are not Guano-worthy, but to cite Pivar speaks very poorly about one’s own knowledge about developmental biology.
And that paper says exactly nothing about traits being passed on or “stored” by egg membranes.
I’m confused. Admittedly, I’m not very knowledgeable on GAs, but I thought they worked on a population of replicators. If you’re suggesting they act within the cell, I don’t know how would that work.
As I see it, there is no conflict in something being a result and a process, depending on the level of analysis.
I wish you replied to this, Joe. Your mysterious unknown mechanism supposedly performs better than NS, although it’s not clear how is it different from NS (except that is somehow “inherited”), or how can you be so sure it works so well whereas we don’t have the foggiest idea of what is it about.
Sorry for the sparse posting, WordPress hates me and sometimes I can’t post comments with many blockquotes. Now, the deletion request for that comment is not working.
If you think NS can’t create mammals with short legs, then how did badgers (burrow-dwelling target of the dachshunds) get their short-legged morphology in the first place?
damn. does that mean that joe won’t show us another CSI calculation?
Joe,
You are not even trying. My point was about both artificial and natural selection having certain directions that depend on the environment (natural or artificial). When the environment changes, the outcome of the selection changes, too. The Grants found (link to PBS) that prevailing weather conditions (that is, natural environment) tipped the balance toward larger or smaller beaks. That’s precisely what Darwin proposed. And that’s how science works: there is a theory, the theory is checked against empirical data. If we find agreement, the theory lives.
I am not even sure what your objection is to this study. That the beaks changed sizes because the Intelligent Designer checked the weather and adjusted the beak sizes? 🙂
He never showed us a first one.
OK, I’ve moved some more stuff to Guano, and also some stuff to Moderation. I’ve also split the comment thread into a max of fifty comments per page which should help the load times.
New plug-in should help me keep on top of things, but please guys, work with me here 🙂
I won’t always make the right judgement call, but the rules are reasonably clear I think: engage with the content on the assumption that the person is posting in good faith, not deliberately lying, evading, being obtuse etc. Even if you think they are.
Thanks.
Joe G:
That’s highly probable, Joe, as dachshunds don’t, in fact, live on badgers.
But, if they did, or could, and there were plenty of badgers, why would NS weed out the dachshunds?
My point of course being that it doesn’t matter whether the reason a variant becomes more prevalent is because humans like it for some reason, and breed from it, or because there is some other reason why that variant breeds better (perhaps it has better camouflage, or better eyesight) – the end result is the same.
Why should NS not produce dachshunds in an environment in which badgers were good food for dogs?