Over the dinner table, I raised the theory that if scientists embarked upon an ongoing project of breeding and positive maintenence of another mammal [for example a dog] then we could speed up the natural evolutionary progression of said mammal.
For example if we provided the family of dogs with mental stimulation, pleasant muscle-building exercise and a tremendously balanced diet full of things that dogs are not currently evolved to obtain [things like milk, fish, bread, fresh fruit and vegetables] then surely the animals would adapt over time [I'm talking thousands of years here] to suit thier environment. Compare this family of mammal to the current state of the mammal you started with, and see the contrast, right?
My mother thinks this is an incorrect assumption. She thinks that if anything, it would hinder another animal's development to provide them with these facilities. Not only did her small-mindedness piss me off, but her unwillingness to see any glimmer of truth to my argument made me storm from the dinner table in a rage. Good daughter that I am. She thinks no matter how much nutrition and influence to grow you give to another species, it will develop at it's own rate. Because humans are special and our brains are wired up differently.
I freely admit that it would take a lot of time, and that the animal might not have the enzymes needed to process a diet of such nutritional richness. So how did humans develop in such a fashion? We spent the last however many thousand years slowly building skills with which to improve our lifestyles. We learnt to knit grass into nets, to fish. We learnt to grow wheat, to grind into flour to make bread. So why not experiment on an animal race? It's not hurting them in the slightest, as it would be an attempted fast-track to evolutionary predominance.
Does anyone have any more points about this, agreeing or disagreeing with me, so that I might have further ammunition to throw at my mother?