>> Humans gathering by hand got the most break resistant grains which in time   
   >> were planted on purpose.  That selection increased so that in time only   
   >> break resistant varieties remained.   
   >   
   >So thousands of years of disallowing the most resistant plants from   
   >reproducing resulting in more resistant plants?   
      
   No, the wild varities still grew, the break resistant variets survived   
   harvesting and were later planted.>   
   >It's not a good model.   
   >   
   Not a model, confirmed in the archaeology of early agriculture in the area.   
   The shift between the types is seen over time.   
      
   >> Only after agriculture was well underway did breeding on purpose for a   
   desired result   
   >> begin.   
   >   
   >Plenty of ancient and dare I say "Primitive" cultures had figured out the   
   >connection between boinking and giving birth. So it's really only a matter   
   >of recognizing that many traits are inheritable.   
      
   Any culture, of what level of complexity who use agriculture caame after   
   those described above.  "Primitive" has no meaning in the scientific study   
   of cultures and human history.   
   >   
   >         ...that might've happened before the domestication of animals. The   
   >knowledge might've already been there waiting for a new application by   
   >the time the first goat was domesticated. I would be surprised if it did not   
   >pre date agriculture. In fact, I strongly believe that domesticated animals   
   >had a hand in the acquisition of agriculture -- as a means to keep their   
   >meat sources plump.   
   >   
   Simple answer, no, the archaeology does not bear that out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)