Clueless EvoTards Think Natural and Artificial Selection are the Same Process
According to the (clueless) NCSE:
Artificial selection and natural selection are different forms of the same process.
Laughable, but there it is.
1- Natural selection cannot produce a toy poodle, whereas artificial selection has. If they were the same process then natural selection would be able to produce a toy poodle. That goes for any of the dog breeds.
2- Natural selection can undo what artificial selection has wrought. For example take away humans and all dogs will become basically the same in just several generations.
3- With artificial selection there is actually real selecting going on. Natural selection is an oxymoron as no selecting is gong on as NS is a result, an output. Not only that it is very weak:
The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild:
Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin's theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.
Be that as it may, the real burden of Kingsolver's study lies in the quantitative conclusions it reaches. Two correlations are at issue. The first is linear, and corresponds to what in population genetics is called directional selection; and the second quadratic, and corresponds either to stabilizing or disruptive selection. These are the cornerstones of the modern hill and valley model of much of mathematical population genetics. Kingsolver reported a median absolute value of 0.16 for linear selection, and a median absolute value of 0.10 for quadratic selection. Thus an increase of one standard deviation in, say, beak finch length, could be expected to change fitness by only 16 percent in the case of linear selection, and 10 percent in the case of quadratic selection. These figures are commonly understood to represent a very weak correlation. Thus if a change in the length of a beak's finch by one standard deviation explains 16 percent of the change in the population's fitness, 84 percent of the change is not explained by selection at all.
The point being when natural selection is observed to do what artificial selection has been doing you can say the are the same process. But until then saying so is just another big fat evotard lie.