Dmitry Belyayev’s breeding experiment

I heard about his experiment on the radio and it kind of blew my mind how fast the physical appearance and DNA (that dictates that physical appearance) could change in just 10 generations. I wrote a post (linked below if that is allowed) so I don’t write too lengthy of a post here. And I would appreciate the validation (or correction so I can try to correct or delete my post if it is too far off) of the synopsis if you could be so kind. I think I have a better understanding than years ago, but I could be way off still, and have no clue. I am no where near at the level of understanding of biology or evolution as many of you and I don’t think I will ever be. As much as I enjoy learning some things and dabbling in others, I just can’t seem to fully wrap my brain around some concepts (though I clearly try through analogies if you remember any of my old posts). I have an extremely thorough understanding of turbine engine theory and aerodynamics and much more mechanical related topics that seem to come so naturally to me that others seem to have a hard time understanding. So perhaps biology just isn’t my strong suit, and never will be?

Sorry if linking was not allowed, please let me know and I can copy and paste that here.

I don’t know if some of the main posters here will remember me. I used to be a somewhat frequent poster a few years ago and enjoyed much of the discourse from many of you and despite still knowing so little, I have learned a ton from yall and appreciate that. This topic doesn’t have quite the level of passion I used to have as I have moved on to other things. But I always enjoyed the quality of the folks from this forum, and I guess that is what has me back here asking my questions.

We discourage linking personal articles in the opening post, as that leads to abusive practices of self promotion, but yours does not seem abusive and is an interesting subject. To be consistent, however, I will move the link to this response.

In looking at some background, I find the results of Belyayev’s may not be quite as quick and remarkable as presented, as there may have been a long period of genetic selection done in fox farms prior to his experiment. It just goes to show that remarkable results often need confirmation in science, though it was still an amazing transformation even if over a couple of hundred years.
https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(19)30302-7

1 Like

Sorry about that. Maybe if I just quote the linked content below that would work ( I think I removed all the ads)?

Thanks for the correction/information on how it might not have been as rapid as I read about.

But how is my understanding of ‘random’ and ‘selection’ with regards to actual evolution? Is that correct?
I have @gbrooks9 to thank for beating ring species into my head way back.

I guess my intent was to get feedback on my understandings from a more educated audience. But that is not to say that I am not up for further discussion of this experiment.

What exactly does “domestication” mean? Does it mean the snout shortens and looks more ‘human’ like? Does domestication mean more reliance/dependence on others? One could almost say a human is the most ‘domesticated’ animal and most successful due to their dependence on others. I guess it is the dependence on others is why it the shrinking brain is part of that domestication process? Though one’s brain might get smaller, the collective brain power in the ‘tribe’ ends up getting larger? But then how or why did a human’s brain end up getting so big? Or is that the second order of domestication? Once it shrinks and a collective brain increases, it will begin to increase again through passed on or shared knowledge and communication, which could have only been done after becoming ‘domesticated’ or not solely living off of the wild survival of the fittest. As opposed to trying to out do one another, and become the alpha, which is the individual that can beat any other individual, we decided to depend on each other and become an alpha race which could easily dominate an alpha individual, but required dependence on one another?

I see from that article you linked [quote]Domesticated (non-breed): A domesticated population is one that is commensal with humans or otherwise generally reliant on a human-modified environment for survival.[/quote]
But does the DNA really know what is commensal with humans? Which goes back to my question, what is domesticated mean? Or other than “commensal with humans” what signature trait/s are found in a domesticated animal?

It is kind of amazing that that is a ‘random’ trait even produced. In a world that is trying to kill you and you need to grow/transform individually to overcome, in this case it actually tried to weaken you. And in weakening the individual, it actually made the collective species stronger. It is almost like humans were selected by God in the role of Dmitry here, and God was waiting for/creating the human to become dependent each other or more importantly on Him before breathing souls and life into them. After all the The Father has had a relation with the Son and Spirit from the begginig of time and created us in His image and is all about love for Him and others and is very clear relations is key to His creation with us.

I guess one could speculate that God once had a very powerful individual (Lucifer) who thought he did become very powerful and thought he was the alpha (in charge or much of God’s creation) and became powerful from his own work/effort and could become even more powerful if he took on and conquer the actual Alpha. Lucifer forgot that he was only the level of power he did have because of what God gave him, not because he earned it or worked for it. Pride blinded him, pride is always the original sin. Stealing glory from God and claiming it for your own. Thinking you can make a decision that you think is best, because you are God. God wanted to help us out by showing us that we have nothing and are nothing apart from Him. So despite the strong urge to become the alpha, we were created to be dependent, and our strength is only in this dependence, dependence in Him, and He created us to be dependent in each other giving Him the praise recognizing we only have what we have because He gave it to us. And He wants to use us all, so that we depend on each other, and all depend on Him so He will rightly receive all the glory. This is why God chose Moses to lead though he couldn’t speak well, David to fight though he was a small weakling, and so many more opposite resume folks to get the job done. To make it more obvious to us and to help us see Him in the acts and not our own strength.

And all of this was programmed into DNA and ‘chance’ and a lot of time. I guess so we cannot claim it is of our own effort we have what we have, we were given what he have at conception and we have Him to give that glory back to if we ever amount to anything.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.