Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

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) • • •

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) • • •

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) • • •

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) • • •

This thread is not about the ark, rather it is about what dogs can become through evolution.Thanks for not pursuing this further on this thread.EnjoyEdited 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) • • •

Or they will call it variation and adaptation, which they use along with speciation to explain modern diversity. Whatever.Please take this comment to another thread, this is about what dogs can become through evolution, (or through variation and adaptation, or however you want to call it).You might try Evolution and the BIG LIE or Biblical Creationism requires Evolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : option linkEdited 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) • • •

From "fox video and evo-devo?" on the Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution thread:Fascinating stuff eh? Here's a clip from the NOVA programIt's sad that they have had to sell off or disperse many of the animals involved in the study.Domesticated silver fox - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Following the demise of the Soviet Union, the project has run into serious financial problems. In 1996 there were 700 tame foxes, but in 1998, without enough funds for food and salaries, they had to cut the number to 100. Most of their expenses are covered by selling them as pets, but they remain in a difficult situation, looking for new sources of revenue from outside funding.

​

On November 22, 2005, the journal Current Biology published an article about the genetic differences between the two fox populations.[3] In this study, DNA microarrays were used to detect differential gene expression between tame foxes, non-tame farm-raised foxes, and wild foxes; one set was raised at the same farm as the tame foxes, and the other set was wild. 40 genes were found to differ between the tame and non-tame farm-raised foxes, although about 2,700 genes differed between the wild foxes and either set of farm-raised foxes. The authors did not analyze the functional implications of the gene expression differences they observed.

---

This seems to support evo-devo -- with the secondary characteristics that result from selecting for calmer response (lower adrenaline levels in each generation) results in additional traits due to the effect of the hormone during development.This seems to apply to all domesticated animals (the secondary traits) so this effect of lower adrenaline seems pretty uniform:http://www.floridalupine.org/...tions/PDF/trut-fox-study.pdf

quote:

---

​

Figure 2. Early in the process of domestication, Darwin noted long ago, animals often undergo similar morphological and physiological changes. Because behavior is rooted in biology, Belyaev believed that selection for behavior implied selection for physiological characteristics that would have broader effects on the animals’ development. These effects might explain patterns in the responses of various animals to domestication.

---

Long article EARLY CANID DOMESTICATION: THE FARM FOX EXPERIMENT

quote:

---

Forty years into our unique lifelong experiment, we believe that Dmitry Belyaev would be pleased with its progress. By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years. Before our eyes, "the Beast" has turned into "Beauty," as the aggressive behavior of our herd's wild progenitors entirely disappeared. We have watched new morphological traits emerge, a process previously known only from archaeological evidence. Now we know that these changes can burst into a population early in domestication, triggered by the stresses of captivity, and that many of them result from changes in the timing of developmental processes. In some cases the changes in timing, such as earlier sexual maturity or retarded growth of somatic characters, resemble pedomorphosis.

---

Isn't this macro-evolution of traits emerging that are not in the original population?This relates to the question of the differences between cats and foxes and the diversity we see in dogs vs wolves (Message 1).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) • • •

Now you've done it. I tried to go to the bathroom, in a relative way, but got stuck when the head wouldn't fit through the door ...bad puns aside, thanks. The comparison of dogs and eohippus is pretty amazing, when you consider their feet are so similar, and the eohippus is thought (due to the kinds of teeth) to be omnivorous. An interesting idea. It may also take training of the humans or finding ways to make that communication work (like using sign language with apes uses their normal use of hand signals). You have made my day, and thanks.Welcome to the fray.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) • • •

Always nice to be appreciated. I had a couple emails too. Yes. A new thread would be cool. Can we get a picture? More details than can be accessed from the abstract?

Thanks Beretta, We know what is actually possible with dogs, and we have repeated this with foxes:Domesticated silver fox - Wikipedia
http://reactor-core.org/taming-foxes.html

quote:

---

Foxes bred for tamability in a 40-year experiment exhibit remarkable transformations that suggest an interplay between behavioral genetics and development.

​

When scientists ponder how animals came to be domesticated, they almost inevitably wind up thinking about dogs. The dog was probably the first domestic animal, and it is the one in which domestication has progressed the furthest ” far enough to turn Canis lupus into Canis familiaris.

​

Evolutionary theorists have long speculated about exactly how dogs' association with human beings may have been linked to their divergence from their wild wolf forebears, a topic that anthropologist Darcy Morey has discussed in some detail in the pages of this magazine, (July-August, 1994). ...

​

... Belyaev, however, believed that the key factor selected for was not size or reproduction, but behavior; specifically amenability to domestication, or tamability. More than any other quality, Belyaev believed, tamability must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among human beings. Because behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals.

​

... To keep things as clear and simple as possible, Belyaev designed a selective-breeding program to reproduce a single major factor, a strong selection pressure for tamability. He chose as his experimental model a species taxonomically close to the dog but never before domesticated: ulpes vulpes, the silver fox. Belyaev's fox-breeding experiment occupied the last 26 years of his life.

​

Today, 14 years after his death, it is still in progress. Through genetic selection alone, our research group has created a population of tame foxes fundamentally different in temperament and behavior from their wild forebears. In the process we have observed some striking changes in physiology, morphology and behavior, which mirror the changes known in other domestic animals and bear out many of Belyaev's ideas.

---

From this controlled experiment Belyaev repeated the evolutionary event of the dogs evolving from wolves. In addition we now see that the domesticated foxes overlap the traits of the domesticated wolf, and this shows that a common ancestor population linking wolf and fox is not only possible but highly probable - without even looking into the fossil record or genetics to ascertain how recent this division occurred. That the fossil and genetic information confirm and validate this just increases the degree of reliability for this having occurred (maintaining scientific tentativity). The only difference between natural selection and human selection is that the traits selected are beneficial to us rather than to the wolf, or fox, or cat, or cow ... etc etc etc. The process that develops the traits selected is natural (until we include genetic engineering in the mix). The breeders do not create the variety, all they do is select from what is there. In this it is identical to natural selection. If the variety is there for humans to select, then it is also there for natural selection to select. The horse fossils disagree with you. Care to continue?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) • • •

Thanks Beretta. ... nothing, for your children will always be your children, and their children will always be the children of your children. Correction, {we} (evolutionists) are still using changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and the division of parent populations into non-gene mixing daughter populations to explain the diversity of life as we know it, while {you} (creationists) are still saying that there is something else involved, but what that "something" is, you refuse to define. {We} (evolutionists} are not limited by {your}(creationists) lack of definition nor the imaginary loss of some mystical mechanism. And that is the point of using dogs and foxes: to demonstrate the degree of possible variation and selection within a species, and to use this as a measuring stick for comparing other variations. Evolution does not say that any form will necessarily evolve into humans or any other specific form already existing. Evolution in fact says that this would be highly improbable. The closest you will get are similar appearing but quite different internally organisms, such as the sugar glider and flying squirrel. This kind of thinking is false thinking: the sugar gliders will never be mammals and the flying squirrels will never be marsupials. The horse fossils disagree with you. They can, and most likely <<some>> WILL, in fact change into something else, given time and opportunity. Nor do we need an actual link of actual ancestors from eohippus to the equines of today.All we need to do is take all the fossils and arrange them by time and space, and then draw boundaries around them that correspond to the boundaries of {DOG} around {WOLF} and see which boundaries overlap other fossils. Such an overlap means that it is possible for one to evolve into the other: we know this is possible because we have seen it occur with the dogs, and have validated it with the foxes. All we need to assume is that the degree of variation we see in dogs can be replicated in any species, an assumption that has been validated by the foxes.This is the yardstick by which we measure what is possible. The original question was what is possible for dog evolution, given millions of years for changes to accumulate. By comparison with the horse fossils we can show that degree of evolution from eohippus into modern horse is one possibility. And if all we need to do is to continue using "change within the kind" to get there, then we do not need any (creationist) fantasy of some still undefined "different as yet undemonstrated kind" of change.Enjoy. Whenever it rains here my DSL line goes out and scrambles all the ip addresses in the process. The fortunes of progress.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited 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) • • •

Welcome back Beretta, No, it is looking at the evidence and seeing what possibilities it shows. When the fossil evidence shows trees of lineage in time and space, that is one possibility that matches the evidence. When we consider other possibilities we then measure them against the evidence to see how they fare.We also look at the genetic evidence to see what possibilities it shows. When the genetic evidence shows trees of descent from common ancestors, that is one possibility that matches the evidence. We then consider other possibilities to see how they fare against the evidence.The problem we (you) have with all other possibilities thus far, is that fossil lineage and genetic common descent match incredibly well, and are both explained extremely well by the one mechanism, evolution. Nothing else comes close, unless you include the concept that your intelligent designer made it look exactly like evolution did everything, as a viable, rational concept (the "god lies" theory). It is one thing to claim this, it is quite another to actually demonstrate it. How does "intelligence outside of matter" explain the horse genealogy and why it looks exactly like evolution? You have it quite backwards here. We have a very good idea of what mutation and natural selection is capable of producing. All we need to do is apply that knowledge against the natural history of the fossils and geology and test if it is capable of explaining the evidence.The evidence includes a dearth of humans in ages when only bacteria lived, and it also includes billions of years of intermediate life forms between those bacteria and the total diversity of life we see today, including humans.The question of how a first life form (or forms) came to exist on earth is a question we may or may not get back to finding out ... but it is an end result, not a beginning one: evolution starts with today, with what we know happens, and then theorizes and tests concepts against the evidence of what happened in the past. Please start a thread to define what "information" is -- how it can be quantified and measured. Nope. Not at all. The original question was what could dogs become, given millions of years for evolution (see Message 1 and the quote from your post). So we are taking the variation known to exist in the dog species and compare it to fossils in the horse lineage, starting with one, eohippus, that is very similar to modern dogs and proceeding through the geological fossil history of the different developments in the horse lineage with the only caveat being that the difference between each step on the way must be less than the variation we know exists in the dog species.That would mean that a dog could evolve into something like a horse ... " ...something that we would say is clearly not a dog ... " ... in the same period of time that passed between eohippus and modern horse.This does not "prove" that horses evolved that way, nor does it claim that dogs will become horses, however the one thing it does show is that the evolution of the horse from eohippus is not impossible with variation and natural selection.Macroevolution achieved through microevolution stages and steps, just as (surprise) evolutionists have always argued. It is not imagination, it is tested concepts, known possibilities applied to known evidence to see if it fits within the known limitations of the known variation. That is science: theory AND testing. Measurement.In the process we can also compare the horse lineage fossils with other fossils from the same time periods to see if they fall in the same area of possibility made by applying the known variation from the dog species to see if they also fit into the range of possibilities, and we can eliminate (falsify) the concept that those fossils would be possible when they do not fit in that range. This too is science: falsification. When you write your thread on "information" you can include this, and show how it relates to the concept of "information" and measurable differences. No, the difference between science and faith is that science is skeptical of ALL ideas equally, and only tentatively trusts those that test out against the evidence, faith, on the other hand, is totally gullible on matters of faith and never attempts to test them. Except (1) that we are part of the natural ecology that makes these adaptations viable (and we are not the only species with pets), and (2) there was no intelligence in the fox experiment design: only one (1) selection criteria was used -- less aggressive behavior. The rest followed naturally.It is perfectly possible that circumstances could make similar selection on a natural basis with no humans necessary. And we also see that the ecology is stable when species are in "stasis" (which means still evolving, just slowly) and that the ecology is unstable when species go extinct (either due to catastrophic happenstance or the invasion of competitive species) and that those species fail to adapt in time to avoid extinction. Evolution at it's purest eh? And we don't classify species as related purely on similarity of features. See Sugar Gliders and Flying Squirrels (read the whole section for even greater understanding). There are at least three: (1) it happened, (2) it didn't happen, and (3) we can't tell whether or not it happened. There is also (4) it is possible that it happened and (5) it is not possible that it happened.Applying the variation we see in dogs to the fossil record in time and space for the horse genealogy will demonstrate that either this is sufficient to explain the evolution of the horse or it isn't. It will invalidate any claim that it is not possible ... and that is much more than blind untested faith. You will no longer be able to rationally conclude (2) or (3) (or (5)). That leaves us with a tentative conclusion that (4) it is possible that it happened. That tentative conclusion, based on limited knowledge is also science, and the difference between science and faith.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) • • •