Artificial selection directly tests whether populations evolve in response

Evidence

The logic of artificial selection experiments is pretty straightforward. In my case, my breeding program selected for increased horn length in generation after generation of the population. The empirical question then concerned whether or not the population evolved in response to this selection. Did the horns of males get longer with each successive generation? — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 288

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Small founder samples make artificial selection results vulnerable to chance — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 291; Replicated divergent selection populations rule out chance in evolution experiments — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 293; Deliberate design generates new cultural variation faster and more constructively than random mutation — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 499

Related

• Small founder samples make artificial selection results vulnerable to chance (similarity 0.89)
• Replicated divergent selection populations rule out chance in evolution experiments (similarity 0.88)
• Deliberate design generates new cultural variation faster and more constructively than random mutation (similarity 0.81)
• Evolution is nonrandom even though mutation is random (similarity 0.81)
• Mutation is random but the resulting evolutionary change is not. (similarity 0.80)
• Sexual selection stays directionally constant while physical natural selection oscillates (similarity 0.79)
• Small founder samples cause random genetic drift in evolving populations (similarity 0.79)