Starting from the wolf, untold ages ago, humans have selectively bred dogs for different roles, for different strengths and attributes. They have gone from the traditional form of the wolf, to the vast assortment of breeds we see today. From the daschund and greyhound, to the mastiff and st bernard. These animals are evolution in progress. If left to the wild they would find niches and either excel or perish. The fact that they are all as diverse as they are… and still the same species is a huge mound of evidence for genetic diversity and the evolution of creatures over time by selective breeding (In this case not natural selection, but an artificial selection, guided by the hands of humans.) Yet they are all still inter-breedable, you can still mate a dog with a wolf to this day and come out with viable, reproductive offspring. Am I crazy or is this not strong, observable evidence of evolution?
It’s proof of our understanding of genetics, but not of evolution necessarily. The fact that selective breeding is a human endeavour whereas evolution is a natural unguided process is a very important distinction.
Edit:
Just to clarify, what I’m saying is that differentiated dog breeds aren’t an example of evolution taking place, therefore not proof of evolution. It does, however, work via the same biological mechanism (genetics).
“Durrrrr they’re still dogs though”
– creationists
“It’s proof of our understanding of genetics, but not of evolution necessarily. The fact that selective breeding is a human endeavour whereas evolution is a natural unguided process is a very important distinction.”
Not true. Evolution in general simply means allele frequency changes within a population (ask any geneticist). This can occur via natural or artificial means. That’s different than Evolution by Natural Selection, which is a specific type of evolution that only utilizes natural processes to select for beneficial traits.
It is evidence against the theory of evolution.
We can easily breed dogs into different shapes and sizes, but we cannot breed dogs into other animals. Small change is built in, but change just goes so far and then stops.
If all dogs were returned to the wild, most would quickly die off before reproducing. After a few generations, they would revert back to a single breed. Natural selection would be stabilizing, not diversifying.
Because they are still dogs. Breeding we know we have done it since the first animal we took as a pet. The dog is not what you are looking for to prove evolution as any dog can breed with any other dog. You need to at least use marsupials which seem to have speciated to fill a variety of niches and can’t interbreed such as a koala and a wombat.
There’s been a multi-generational study in Russia regarding the evolution of foxes in captivity that’s interesting, and relates to the evolution of dogs. They have been selectively breeding the most docile foxes for generations, and already the offspring several generations down the line are considerably more domestic, and can be handled by children… not to mention already showing strong differentiation in coloration.
That is not evolution. That is selective breeding.>>http://catholicmyths.blogspot.com/
The majority of people believe in creation, even after nearly 100 years of evolution being taught.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/2…
Watch this video and see if you feel the same afterwards.
Darwins Dilemmahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDuIHx7yl…
Peace be with you
<<
It’s genetics, not evolution. Disprove of evolution is found in the September 2010 issue of Nature, when they did experimental evolution in fruit flies. After 600 generations of conditions that supposedly would trigger fitness gains in these fruitflies, none were observed.
Evolution is obviously a fact, but wolves and dogs are part of the same family, so I don’t understand your example. Creationists say “you’ll never see a dog turn into a cat.” A dog and wolf, however, are canines.
I do agree that dogs came from wolfs, but they are still canines. It’s adaptation within a KIND, like the Bible says. Call me when a dog changes into something not a canine. There is little DNA difference between a wolf and a dog.
What you observe is something the Bible is very clear on, this is simply a kind, in this instance a canine kind. Well spotted.
I believe in evolution if wolf can become monkey, birds or whale.
Human can mutate and the mutation can marry with other human, so what’s your point?
they are still canines, am i correct? i do not however believe reptiles came from fish that decided to start walking and mammals that came from reptiles that got a little too cold…
selective breeding isn’t evolution. It’s sick.
You have proved that ‘higher’ beings can create different types of animal
They want to see cats turn into birds.
REPENT!!!!! JESUS IS LORD
Creationists create an (artificial) distinction between ‘micro-evolution’ and ‘macro-evolution’. Micro-evolution is what we can see in front of us, breeding new subspecies of dogs, or dosing bacteria in a petri dish with antibiotic to make them more antibiotic-resistant in several generations. Macro-evolution is the creation of whole new species, and since we can’t see that in our lifespans, creations insist it’s impossible, it doesn’t exist.
So they can reject fossil evidence out of hand. They point to gaps in the fossil record, but when fossil hunters find a fossil in the middle of a gap, well now they have TWO gaps. 8^)
The Catholic Church used to consider it a heresy to hold that the earth revolved around the sun. They almost burned Galileo at the stake for it. But eventually the evidence had built up to the point where the earth-centered universe became -untenable- so the Church let it go. (But they didn’t forgive Galileo until the 1970s!) Creationism is slowly becoming untenable these days, so I look for it to disappear eventually.
You don’t understand the difference between MICRO-evolution and MACRO-evolution. Show me a dog that can have offspring that is no longer a dog. That is the problem with evolution. Of course things change over time, that is a given. But we find it to be a matter of faith to believe that an animal can be born with gills simply because its ancestors liked to spend time in or near water. It is a matter of faith for a person to believe that all life on earth came from a single cell which created itself out of inanimate matter. And if you believe that life came from space on a meteor, where did that life originate? You see, eventually you have to admit that your source of life is nothingness. You believe that something came from nothing. That is a faith my friend.
Think carefully about what you are trying to use as a PRO evolution argument.
You are trying to call the speciation we see in canines “evolution”. It is nothing of the sort.
Evolution is, by definition, a process that happens by “natural selection”. But what happened with dogs is not natural at ALL.
Today’s dog species occurred because, in your own words, “humans have selectively bred dogs for different roles, for different strengths and attributes”.
Read that carefully. “HUMANS have SELECTIVELY BRED”. In other words, for the variety of species we now see among dogs, the intervention of an INTELLIGENT entity was necessary. In this case, the intelligent entities involved were human, but they were still an intelligent entity.
In other words, today’s dogs are the result of HUMANS intelligently DESIGNING species. It was genetic engineering in primitive form. Thus, the great variety of dog species we have today is an argument AGAINST evolution and FOR Intelligent Design.
Even if evolution could be forcibly stimulated in a lab, that would not prove that it would happen naturally. It would, in fact, give support to Intelligent Design.
Evolution does not disprove the bible or God but only someones theological interpretation. On the idea of whether there is a God or not, good science yet remains neutral. Since God is tracing genes in the bible, doesn’t that mean that God new about evolution before science? Does Genesis 30:39 where Jacob is dealing with the flocks of sheep reveals that God had taught him something about genes and how they are passed from generation to generation?
The things spoken about in Genesis 1 that God did in an instant mentally/Spiritually is still unraveling in the progress of time and Genesis 2:1-3 from the point of view of the physical has not yet happened. Now Adam was the start of a new segment of time called the Adamic age (of which the bible deals with) within a much older segment of time that could be millions or billions of years old. Adam was something new introduced to this world. Time is actually insignificant to the God. Genesis 6 speaks about Adam’s offspring (called the Sons of God) being mixed with the humanoid evolved creatures, that were here before Adam, through their daughters. Noah was mixture and so are we. Adam’s offspring introduced language and objectivity to the purely subjective and emotional world of the animal. Adam is the missing link that science has yet to find because of his origin as an angelic genes that were placed in a physical body his bones dissolved after death and so did his descendants that were giant. Because the Giant were not able to breed with the smaller people they became more and more inbreed which produces mental and physical problems. Since not all were physical giants though but some were mental and spiritual giants yet of a small size and could breed in a bigger gene pull their traits survived. Adam’s genes remain on this planet but only mentally and spiritually.