Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

Hi RAZD, RAZD I am sorry if I offended you I was not trying to make and argument.I was stating an observation.You are a much different person than you were back in March.If you disagree go back and read your post then and compare them to now.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Please take it here to discuss. It is part of that topic and not this one eh?Last post by someone else that addressed the topic was Message 13 by Beretta.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : lastEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

On the thread Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science? you (once again) go off topic and in message 166 repeat your claim that started this thread: Here we were sticking to the facts. As yet you haven't answered the question of what the facts show. What did this dog sized, dog footed omnivorous animal produce: Yet there is no -- absolutely no -- evidence of it not happening, of two different fossils that are identical. If evolution did not happen you would have fossils of identical organism.What we can do -- and have done -- is measure the relative similarities and differences between fossils, and create a pattern in time and space based on the relative similarities and differences between fossils and the time and location where the fossils were found.We can measure the relative similarities and differences between living organisms of the same species, and this gives us a measure of the natural diversity within a living species, and when we do this for many species we can see what kind of average diversity exists in species.We can do the same for the relative similarities and differences between living species of the same genus, and the relative similarities and differences between living genera in the same family, etc. etc.We can apply this metric of average natural diversity within species to the fossil record, and see whether the total {similarities and differences) between two fossils is greater or lesser than the total {similarities and differences} between living organisms of the same species. This allows us to categorize fossils into likely species, genera and family groupings.When we combine the pattern in time and space with the metric of average natural diversity we get a result like this: This is not connecting the dots between widely dispersed fossils, rather the dots are in sufficient number that they draw their own picture.The fossils arrange themselves vertically in time by the depth where they are found in the accumulated sediment, and they arrange themselves horizontally by their relative size. There is no manipulation of the data, no "interpretation" other than labeling some as one species and some as another based on the accumulated differences in time. While those time differences may seem arbitrary (and they are), when we come to the size split in the data into two distinct lineages there is nothing arbitrary about the evidence that speciation has occurred in that lineage of fossils.This has been done for lineage after lineage after lineage of fossils, and the pattern that emerges from the data is that species do change over time and that speciation does occur, and that descent from common ancestors happens.Notice that the width of the bars for fossils at any depth is greater than the degree of change from one depth to another, indicating that the natural diversity of the species and any time is more than the degree of change from generation to generation, and thus easily falls into the category of evolution as the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.This has also been done for horses, as noted before in Message 17:

quote:

---

Florida Museum of Natural History - Fossil Horse Gallery:

​

(click link to access site, image is mirrored to save bandwidth)

---

Where only genus level is used to show the pattern, where each genus includes several related species and many many fossils. The empirical evidence, the observations show the pattern of evolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

You are saying that because genetic variety is possible, therefore evolution of macro variety must be possible? But we have no evidence that that can actually happen. Everything we observe shows there are limitations. If you say, aaah yes but we need millions of years to observe it so we are limited, we must then rely on our imagination instead of observation -that is not science, that is speculation and belief not proof.
If we have no evidence that it did not happen, that does not mean it necessarily did happen. That's like saying a crime must have happened because we do not have evidence that it did not happen.Just because things have similarities, like fingers or eyes, does not mean they are necessarily related. Do you think we are related to fish simply because we both have eyes? There again you are assuming time. And what about the very abrupt appearances of fully formed body types -their general stasis in the fossil record and then their either disappearance (extinction) or the fact that so many kinds have really barely changed at all in the time it has taken one-celled organisms to become human?? If this all makes sense to you perhaps it is your belief system and is not based on the evidence at all. That's not what the data says, it is an interpretation of the data most likely (or definately) inspired by the belief that it happened that way. There may be other ways of interpreting it that wouldn't even occur to the interpretor due to his evolutionary mindset. Some things don't look as likely to some people as they do to other people. There are philisophical differences behind the differences in interpretation and neither way can be conclusively proven but one is more evidence-based than the other. The belief that humans only produce other humans is more evidence-based and thus scientific than saying that, given time, somthing else (like apes) might have produced mutated varieties that progressed to humans -that's more speculative and saying that we do not have enough time to prove it, therefore we should accept it on faith, is not scientific.That just means we can never falsify the theory -except maybe in millions of years -in the meantime, in the absence of evidence that it did not happen, we teach it as fact.

Specifically list these limitations. What exactly prevents the small changes from adding up? It's called logical inference. Given observation of small changes, it can be logically inferred that if these small changes were to continue they would add up to a very large difference after a few thousand iterations, barring a specific mechanism preventing such a result. This inference makes certain testable predictions, like being able to guide the small changes in generations to create new breeds with specific characteristics...much like we do with dog breeds. It predicts that the fossil record should continue to show small changes over time adding up to more significant changes...which is exactly what we see. It predicts that we should be able to see a large degree of genetic similarity between closely related species, and less similarity between species separated by millions of generations...which is exactly what we see. We have a large amount of evidence suggesting that small changes do and did add up to very large changes. We have observed new species forming from pre-existing ones. We have observed new traits forming and bred specifically to increase their frequency. With such a strong suggestion that evolution happened, and every prediction it makes being verified through experimental evidence or the fossil record, it is extremely likely that it did happen, barring the introduction of some new mechanism that is observed to prevent the tiny raindrops from causing a flood. We are very distantly related to fish, though the reason we know that has little to do with eyes. Did you know that the human fetus briefly forms gills while in the womb? Fossilization is extremely rare, and nobody seriously suggests that an organism will ever be anything other than "fully formed," excepting perhaps when it is still a fetus. We have statistically few examples of each species to go on, and evolution predicts that all species should be fully formed with fully functioning features - except that the features gradually change over time and sometimes take on completely different roles. A species that is extremely well-adapted to its environment is unlikely to change all that much. Evolution is prompted by the environment selecting for beneficial changes. When we use antibacterial soap, for example, we kill off all of the non-resistant bacteria, and so the only population that remains to reproduce is the resistant strain. Left on their own without the antibiotics, there would be no selection, and the non-resistant bacteria would do just fine as they always have. This is the same silly argument of "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" First, humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor. Second, if both apes and humans are well-adapted to their respective environments, why would one ever die out? You ignore the fact that we have observed changes in species. We have even observed speciation events, where a new species arises from a pre-existing species. When an organism develops separately from its ancestor population for enough generations that, when re-introduced to the parent population, the two populations no longer breed and have distinctive characteristics, it's extremely difficult to interpret the data any other way. The opinions of those uneducated in biology are irrelevant to scientific discussions of biology. Arguments from ignorance or incredulity are flawed from the start. My great-grandfather would have thought it impossible for men to land on the moon even if he had seen it on TV with his own eyes - it doesn't make the fact that we did land on the moon any less true. Yes, one is more based on evidence than the other. Evolution has mountains of evidence from multiple fields of research that all happen to match up with its predictions.There is no faith in science. There is only evidence, prediction, testing, and inference. Evolution has proven to be a highly accurate model for the way life changes over time, backed up by countless observations. Of course we could falsify the theory. If we saw a compeltely new species, existing today or in the fossil record, that had no similarities to any species ever observed, that would be a pretty large blow. If we saw a species that had such a differnt genetic code that it could not have been related to the common ancestors all other life is descended from, that would be a large blow. If we detected a new mechanism that does prevent small changes from adding up to large ones, that would be a large blow. If we did not observe the formation of a new species from a pre-existing species, that would be a large blow.Each and every experiment testing the predictions of the theory of evolution is another chance for the theory to be falsified, Beretta. You're just unhappy because, so far, it has proven to be highly accurate in all of its predictions.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Ah, no, it is an inescapable conclusion based on the data and supported by history. The people who concluded that Evolution was a fact and that developed the Theory of Evolution did NOT begin with an evolutionary mindset. They were forced to accept it based on the overwhelming weight of the evidence.Do you plan on continuing to post falsehoods that have been refuted numerous times?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This is off topic. One needs to keep the topic in mind and not go chasing all the rabbits that appear.This specific part of this specific thread is about the differences and similarities between the dog skeleton and the eohippus skeleton.Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Beretta for coming back to this. I hope you're not too distracted by the other responses. To properly answer your question I would have to know what you mean by macro variety evolution. We've already discussed what this means for biologists, and the thread started with a demonstration that the amount of change to get from cat to fox is less than the variation we see in dogs.You need to define what is enough change to convince you, and I have asked if the change necessary to get from a dog-like eohippus to a modern horse is enough. I've yet to hear your answer -- a simple yes or no would move us forward.Personally I think the answer must be yes or the whole argument gets pretty ridiculous, for if the answer is no then either:

• you are readily acknowledging that the evolution of the horse from a dog-like eohippus is within the realm of known evolutionary processes - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, OR
• the amount of change gets to the level of something that does not in fact occur and is greater than any change known in the fossil record.

Think about it. We've already seen greater change within dogs than there exists from the natural evolution that separates cats and foxes. We also have enough fossil evidence that the evidence draws a clear path of development over time, as seen in the changes in pelycodus above and the clear speciation event due to those changes when the path divides into two distinct groups from the parent one. It does not take imagination to see those paths from observing the evidence that exists. But you cannot say that there are limits to what can happen without having evidence that it cannot exceed those limits. Not just because we have eyes, no. But the fact that we both have the same kind of retina and lens etc structure while the octopus does not have this structure means that we are more likely to be related to fish than to octopuses. But the evidence of our relation to fish involves a lot more than eyes, it involves a progression of skeletal features with changes from species to species that are of the same magnitude as the changes in skeletal features from eohippus to modern horse. We can discuss these changes once we are done with the eohippus to horse example if you wish. Again, we can come back to this when we are done with the eohippus to horse example if you wish. Nope, that is what the data shows. Here is pelycodus again: Layers of sedimentary deposit is the vertical scale, size of the organisms is the horizontal scale, the horizontal bars show the variation in size within the populations. Other than size the skeletons are similar.How do you interpret that? We've already seen more variation in dogs than is shown by this graphic evidence of speciation in pelycodus, thus we know this kind of change can occur easily in the amount of time that it has taken for dogs to evolve into their various forms, a much shorter time than that represented by the sedimentary layers for the pelycodus. If you have problems with that, then please discuss why it is possible in dogs but not in pelycodus. We can come back to this when we are done with the eohippus to horse example if you wish. The idea would be to understand how to build one step before saying whether or not you can make a staircase. You're certainly not going to falsify it by ignoring evidence. To say that the evolution of modern horse from eohippus cannot happen you need to look at the evidence of all the fossils between eohippus and modern horse and then [i]show/i that some stage is not reasonable, some point is reached where we cannot show the same degree of change from one fossil set to the next that we see within dogs.So:(1) is the difference we see between the eohippus skeleton and the dog skeleton more or less that the variation we see within the different kinds of dogs today?(2) is the change from eohippus to modern horse enough to demonstrate macro variety evolution?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi RAZD,Sorry it's taken so long to reply. How about no.There are too may problems with the eohippus to horse conversion.Finding both in the fossil record and imagining that one eventually gave rise to the other is too imaginary for me.
The fossil record in general exhibits stasis of kinds -for example the jellyfish fossil found in Utah in Cambrian strata is very similar to modern jellyfish.How did they attain their characteristics so early on in the fossil record and barely change since then (assuming depth indicates time)? What happened so rapidly to jellyfish back then that has not happened in the half billion years since?
This is just another case of sudden appearance of a complex life form followed by stasis - which appears to me to be evidence against gradualist Darwinism.How did single celled organisms manage to morph into men in the same time period? Did they in fact do that at all?Instead of showing one species gradually transforming into another, fossils overwhelmingly exhibit minor variation within a given species.Saying that eohippus may have turned into the modern horse is speculation. They may have no connection at all. How would we prove it? Observational science can't connect them.
Instead of defending neo-Darwinism we should look at the evidence more critically. So that tells us that there is substantial genetic variation possible within a particular kind of animal but it does not tell us the limits of variability.Are there limits? Evolutionists don't seem to think so,I do.Who is correct? Consensus opinion can't tell us which is correct but imaginative connections could lead us far from the truth. And similarly you cannot assume no limits in the absence of proof.
Everything we see now seems to show limits, only guess work leads us to believe otherwise. Which is by no means proven, in fact that conversion is hotly disputed. Similarity does not mean that they are necessarily related.Perhaps similar types are based on a good general design principle. Nor make it true by ignoring the evidence against it.Sudden appearance, general stasis -what about that??
What are the limits of reproductive crossing in the wild? Why are there such limits? Why can't any one kind of bird reproduce with another kind if they are of a compatible size? There appear to be limits to what is possible even if we don't have all the answers as to why.

In what way is it supported by history??? Yes it did. Trying to explain the existance of everything by assuming only materialistic means is a mindset;it is a philosophy. No, they observed minor variation. They found billions of dead things buried in sedimentary strata and proposed or theorized, based on materialism and uniformatarianism, that they were all connected by a common ancestor that changed in major ways over a long period of time. Refuted by whom? By someone who was there to observe these major changes over hundreds of millions of years? People who refute what they cannot prove are people with a viewpoint, not a scientific corner on knowledge.

ThanksEdited by RAZD, : resized

Thanks Beretta,Let's see if we can iron out some of these issues: Let's set this aspect of the question aside for now, and consider that what we want to do is compare similarities between organisms without any necessary genetic relationship.The original question you raised was what could dogs become -- so the question is not what has happened but what could happen, specifically what could happen to dogs.We can start with dog and eohippus, not because of any genetic relationship but because of physical similarity in body form, size, etc. The question you posed starts with this basic point: is the difference between dog and eohippus more or less than the amount of variation that exists within dog varieties. Again this is broader than is intended for this topic, and we can discuss it later if you wish, but for now let's talk dog and eophippus similarities and differences. I would say that the limits for any species at any time could not be less that what we see in dogs today, and that the creationist model would predict greater possible genetic variety the further you go into the past. Thus using the dog as a metric for the possible limits of variation at any time should be conservative.To keep imagination within the bounds of reason we can use the difference from wolf to a variety in dogs as a known amount of variation that is possible within a species -- we know that much is possible:We don't need to consider (imaginary or otherwise) connections at all, because we are not talking about what happened in the (more for some, less for others) hypothetical past of horses, but rather in what could happen to dogs given the opportunity.Just for reference, here are the dog and eohippus again:

​

Dog Skeleton, by Cheryl R. Dhein, Washington State University

​

​

"dawn horse." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16-Dec-07Are the differences between dog and eohippus more or less than the variation we see in dogs?Is eohippus similar in size, body proportions, feet, tail, etc to dog or not?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I'd have to go with less -but we are talking about bones here nothing else. Yes their bones are pretty similar.

Thanks again Beretta. Bones are generally all we have from fossil evidence. Good. We have a starting point with eohippus\Hyracotherium:Eohippus | Size & Facts | Britannica

quote:

---

​

"dawn horse." Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16-Dec-07

---

Now we look at another similar skeleton -- is it similar in size, body proportions, feet, tail, etc to eohippus or not?From Orohippus

quote:

---

​

The anatomical differences between the two are slight: they were the same size, but Orohippus had a slimmer body, a more elongated head, slimmer forelimbs and longer hind legs, all of which are characteristics of a good jumper. The upper premolars of Orohippus are more molariform (flat-surfaced) than in Hyracotherium, giving Orohippus more teeth for grinding, and the crests on the teeth are more pronounced, indicating that Orohippus probably fed on tougher plants. The outer toes of Hyracotherium are no longer present in Orohippus, hence on each forelimb there were four fingers (toes) and on each hind leg three toes.

---

Now the question is not whether eohippus and orohippus are related, but whether a dog could change by the same amount of difference as that between eohippus and orohippus -- are the differences between eohippus and orohippus more or less than the variation we see in dogs? Could a dog become an "oro-dog" while not changing more than we see in the variation within dog today?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spEdited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Now we take the next step. It seems to me that the difference between eohippus and orohippus is less that the difference between dog and eohippus that you already agreed was less than the amount of variation currently within the dog species. That would logically mean that eohippus could have evolved into orohippus -- that this is possible, whether it actually occurred or not.That would also logically mean that a dog could evolve into an "oro-dog" (if it hasn't already) by the same amount and location of changes that we see from eohippus to orohippus.Dogs currently have four toes that support their weight (look at dog footprints) and a fifth toe that is clear of the ground, which is sometimes missing:http://www.canismajor.com/dog/feet.html

quote:

---

First, a bit of anatomy is in order. A dog walks on his toes like a horse, not the soles of his feet like a bear or a human. ...

​

Each foot has four pads on the ground, each with its own toenail. Some breeds also have dew claws, a fifth toe on the inside of the paw that doesn't touch the ground. Dew claws are generally left on the front feet, but usually removed on the hind feet as they can catch on obstacles and tear. Dew claws are removed when the pup is a few days old, before his nerves are completely active so he feels no pain.

---

Thus dogs have already evolved to use one less toe than they started with. This fifth toe is often missing in modern breeds, just as the unused toe of eohippus is missing in orohippus.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added to quoteEdited by RAZD, : :Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •