Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

Randman,I will not engage in a long debate with you on this thread, as you have a tendency to avoid the real debate and attempt to drag it off into all sorts of corners -- such as adding whales to the mix, discussing transitionals, fossil rarity and other known metrics that have been applied to the fossil record -- that not only are unnecessary but are counterproductive: they waste posts that would otherwise be on topic, and regurgitate positions that have already been answered. You want to talk about whales, start another topic.One thing (of several) I will point out that is false reasoning on your part: First off, non-related (or distantly related) species that share traits does not violate evolution in any way. See Sugar Gliders and Flying Squirrels as an example of convergent evolution, but more important of sharing analogous traits but not homologous traits.Second, the fact that canines and felines share so many traits is because they have a fairly recent common ancestor. They are similar, but there are some differences (eyelids, tongue barbs) -- it is just that overall those differences are less than the differences we see within the dog species. Evolutionists know how to tell the differences, and which ones are important from a hereditary perspective.It is creationists that seem to think that there should be some great difference between species, but they will never ever define what that difference has to be. They talk about vast change with half vast definitions.The only thing the little difference between dogs and cats and foxes proves is that the creationist concept of undefined dramatic change is not needed in evolution.In other words the only thing this is not supportive of is your idea of evolution rather than the real thing. "Randmanolution" has been disproved. Now we can get back to the real thing.I'll thank you to leave it at that, and I'll thank others not to take your bait to go off--topic. Please start another topic Randman.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) • • •

Hello, Beretta, I thought I would add to my previous response. Let's test this hypothesis. From European Starling, Sturnus vulgaris, eNature article by Brian E. Small, eNature.com:

quote:

---

Conditioned by centuries of living in settled areas in Europe, this species easily adapted to American cities after 100 birds were liberated in Central Park, New York City, in 1890. Since then it has spread over most of the continent. Its large roosts, often located on buildings, may contain tens of thousands of birds. Hordes of these birds create much noise, damage vegetable or fruit crops, and do considerable damage around feedlots, consuming and fouling the feed of domestic cattle, and have proved difficult to drive away. Starlings compete with native hole-nesters for woodpecker holes and natural cavities. There has been much debate regarding their economic value, but their consumption of insects, such as locusts and ground beetles, seems to tip the balance in their favor.

---

In other words, the starlings adapted themselves to live around humans, rather than have the humans select them for tameness, and this adaptation has been advantageous for the starlings. Thus it is possible for natural selection alone to make the same selection for tameness that was done with the fox experiment (and the experiment article talks about the possibility that dogs originally selected themselves to take advantage of humans, rather than being domesticated by humans). Tame foxes if they were to arise naturally could find the same advantage to living around humans as have starlings and a number of other animals.I am not aware of anybody that thinks starlings are desirable to have around, rather it seems that humans have spent considerable energy trying to discourage starlings from living around humans.We have also discussed the metric of using the variations within the dogs to judge whether other fossil species can evolve one from the other. Randman (Message 72) suggested that this was a new idea, but in this he is ignorant of the kinds of measurements biologists use. Biologists involved in taxonomy spend their lives measuring and comparing fossils and skeletons to document how much alike and how different they are. What I have done is taken this kind of detailed in depth measuring process and made a rather simplistic approach more suited to the layperson than the scientist.One example of using such a metric by biologists is the pelycodus diagram: Here you can see layer by layer of fossils, with the variation in size shown as horizontal bars and thicker bars to show the rough distribution of numbers with the different sizes. This diagram shows how each subsequent layer shows change in the average size of the individuals, but in every case the sizes from descendant layers overlap the sizes in previous layers, and the difference from layer to layer is less than the amount of variation in the population as a whole.The approach suggested here using the amount of variation known to exist in one species, dogs, and applying that degree of variation is similar, but it is still less than the degree of comparison that taxonomists do.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 Beretta,Please also see Message 80 concerning selection of traits in foxes occurring naturally by comparison to starlings adaptation to humanity. Some does, some doesn't. Foraminifera don't. There are lots of other examples of gradual trends. Pelycodus shows a branching where one species evolves into two species. There are other examples of branching species. The often quoted out of context basis for punctuated equilibrium. Yet the degree of difference Gould and Eldredge were talking about does not exceed the variation we see in dogs.In addition, Gould looked at the evidence of the foraminifera and agreed that it demonstrated classical Darwinian gradualism and not punkeek. Not every speciation has to occur the same way you know. Phillip Johnson is a lawyer and a professional liar. He is NOT concerned with truth. And yet it also matches location and chronology? Please. If you want we can also review this "arrangement" as we go from one set of fossils to another ... using dog variation as the bridge. So we can look at what the evidence really shows. Using old (1951?) complaints about arrangements and applying them to ones that have been revised (1992?) based on more complete information doesn't make the evolution of horses false.Science progresses by new evidence and discarding invalid concepts.What we have today is obviously NOT a single linear pattern, but one that, due to the additional evidence noted in those articles (if you read the originals instead of the creationist quote-mined excerpts?), shows the branches:

quote:

---

Florida Museum of Natural History - Fossil Horse Gallery:

​

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

---

That is what the evidence shows and it resolves the issues of old. Wrong. We have a metric that we can use - the variation in dogs is a MINIMUM that we KNOW mutation and selection are capable of producing. As long as the step by step changes in the fossil record are equal or less than the differences in dogs we KNOW it is possible. Again, all we need to show is that it is possible, for there is no "conclusive proof" in any science. If you doubt this then please supply one theory in one other science that has been conclusively proven.Science tells you what is possible if the theory is true.Science tells you that it is possible to get from eohippus to mesohippus by the same variation\mutation and selection as we see in dogs, thus it absolutely is possible for one to have evolved from the other.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) • • •

Hey Beretta, I'll try again and see if the third time is the charm. Having trouble with my laptop (it must be less evolved than newer ones). Because "kinds" is an undefined all inclusive category, this is essentially a truism, and true for all evolution, no matter what scale you look at it: descendant organisms are descendants of their parent organisms. Duh.The other problem is that there are no limitations to variation that have been observed, especially when you step from one species to the next, and that is the purpose of this thread: to demonstrate that there is no observed barrier to variation. And always will remain descendants of pelycodus, however in later generations\ages they become classified as a new different genus. This is just the first step of that diversification, just as speciation is the first step in all taxon differentiations. Or it is just a matter of calling it something else, a totally arbitrary human identification. All cells are similar, the cells that make up your body are not significantly different from the cells of eukaryotic single cell bacteria, they have the same basic elements, and they reproduce cells similar to themselves in the same way: your skin, for instance, is totally replaced every 3 or 4 weeks by new skin cells that have all, every one, come into being by asexual cell division.Creationist like to pretend to themselves that humans are different from all other organisms, but at the cellular level no such difference can be distinguished. The test for speciation is not whether the two branches can breed, but whether they do breed. Thus when we look at the asian greenish warbler we see two variations of a species that no longer choose to breed between the two sub-populations. This is the same thing we see in pelycodus: two populations that do not choose to breed, so they diverge in size into two distinct populations accumulating differences in morphology as they no longer share and mix genes that would bridge the gap between the sub-populations. It is a simple observation of fact: hereditary traits are no longer shared between two sub-populations, but are only shared within the sub-populations.We don't need to call it anything, but that doesn't change the fact that where there was one population there are now two populations and the diversity of life has increased. We call it speciation for convenience in further discussions. There is no guesswork in foraminifera, there is no guesswork in pelycodus, there is no guesswork in the hundreds of similar examples that populate the entire fossil record, all you need to do is observe the fossils and the variation with time. But, and this is why we can use dogs as a metric, the variation from wolf to one particular breed is the same kind of variation that we see in the fossil record. What all the different breeds show is the effect of multiple instances of isolation of breeding populations - that is all that dog breeding involves - and how this can result in morphological differences. Humans don't introduce mutations, all they do is isolate different dog populations ... and why dogs are identified as "purebreds" for those different breeds.And we are not interested in just the variation within a species, but the variation between species, as one species becomes another, and then another, and another ... etc: is the variation between each of these populations possible with evolution? If it is less than the variation we see between wolf and a dog breed then yes, it is possible.We know that the variation seen in dogs is possible with population isolation, so when we compare the variation between wolf and a breed, or between breed, we are looking at the results of different population isolations. Nope.There are many instances of gradual evolution within the fossil record, and this is one of the reasons that both paleontologists and biologist objected/criticised punk-eek. Just because there is no complete record of every stage of evolution doesn't mean that there are NO records of various stages of evolution.Nor can you ignore the evidence of gradual evolution when you claim that "de novo appearance" is a viable explanation. To be a valid explanation your theory needs to explain all the evidence. Correct. I have a prejudice against liars. My prejudice against Phillip Johnson is not because he is a lawyer or because he is a creationist, but because he is a liar. He makes "sense" to you only because he is telling you lies you want to believe. A good used car saleman is like that. Please start a thread to document this assertion. WIthout any evidence of science (not scientists) "overstepping the bounds of science" all you have is an assertion, and when you say they are forced by evidence to change, then all you are doing is repeating what I said: "Science progresses by new evidence and discarding invalid concepts." This leaves you in the curious position of arguing that science doesn't progress by new evidence and discarding invalid concepts (ie you disagree with me) because they discard invalid concepts when there is new evidence (ie you agree with me). Curiously this is all science can ever do on any topic - show what is possibly the truth. It does this by the process of eliminating what is not possible. Nobody claims that the fossil evidence is proof that evolution occurred, rather that evolution is the best known method of explaining all of the fossil evidence, the evidence of the natural history of the earth that extends back to single cellular life 3.5 billion years ago. And again, no theory in any single science is provable, but what we can do is eliminate concepts that don't work and that are contradicted by the evidence. All we need to do is show that there is no barrier between eohippus and mesohippus that is outside the known variation from evolution - and in this particular case all we need to do is show that the variation from eohippus to mesohippus is less than the variation within dogs, our "known basis of variation possibility" - and by this method we can prove that it is possible. And no scientific theory in any science is provably true, and all we can do is demonstrate - prove - that it is possibly true. When we have a number of theories that are all demonstrated to be possibly true, then we can test one against the other, and see if evidence can determine which is more likely than the other/s.For instance we can say you have a theory of "de novo creation" of new species and we can test that against evolution.Evolution explains all the diversity of life on earth by known possible variation from one species to the next."De Novo Creation" only explains the evidence that does not show evolutionary steps: it fails to explain the diversity of foraminifera, it fails to explain the diversification of pelycodus.Evolution explains how population isolation can result in different hereditary traits in sub-populations being passed from one generation to the next, and thus how new species can arise, and these mechanisms can (and have been) tested."De Novo Creation" doesn't explain how anything happens - there are no mechanims to "it's magic" that can be tested.Ergo, evolution is the better theory for explaining all the evidence, and it can be (and has been) scientifically tested. Denial does not make the evidence go away, the evidence that shows the horse evolution does not require anything more than the same mechanisms and processes we observe in life around us today as this life continually evolves and changes. But there are facts of evolution that are true and no amount of hand-waving and denial by creationists is ever going to change that. Nor do we need to wait to prove evolution when no other science needs to prove their theories, NOR do we need to satisfy the beliefs of some people to teach science that is inconvenient to their belief.What we teach in science class is science. Facts, evidence, theory, and what it means if the theory is true, the parts that are testable.If you disagree with the possibilities of science then you need to show that they are not possible. Protesting that you don't believe them is not enough. Denial of facts is not science.The earth is old, that is a fact.
The universe is older, that is a fact.
Life on earth is old, that is a fact.
The first known life on earth was single cell organisms, that is a fact.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) • • •

Going back to this one comment: Agreed, however two points:(1) (already mentioned) that we need only compare variation of one breed to wolf, not the whole gene pool of dog vs wolf.(2) (already mentioned) we are concerned with variation from one species to the next in order to go beyond variation within a species ...... and if we limit ourselves to the known variation seen in species for the maximum amount of variation we can consider between species in order to show hereditary lineages, then we are being conservative. If your whole argument boils down to (1) all variation seen is within a species and (2) we can only look at variation within a species, then of course your argument is banally true, and it proves nothing (other than that you don't want to look at evidence).What you cannot say, however, is that you have in any demonstrated that the evolution of horse by standard evolution of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation has not in fact occurred, or that the evidence in the fossil record is not sufficient to show this evolution, or that there is any limitation to 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) • • •

Welcome to the fray, redneck22.Please note that Granny Magda said this was off-topic. It is. The topic is about dogs and evolution, not murder and torture.If you really feel compelled to talk about that issue, then please start a new thread. The question for you is whether you really understand evolution. You can start at the beginning of this thread and reply to this topic or start a new one.Enjoy.ps - as you are new here,type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.For other formating tips see Posting TipsGo to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.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) • • •

No, by banally true I mean that you limit your looking at evidence to only looking at the evidence that shows your statement to be true. It's like saying that all numbers are odd numbers because we don't look at even numbers. That's a pretty poor philosophy. Actually you have it exactly backwards: if it is science (like every other science) then all you can do is prove the theory false, and it is the job of the skeptics to do so.A theory explains facts, if you don't like the explanation you need to show why it is false, not say that we can't look at the facts.If you think you have a better explanation, then trot it out so we can compare how each one handles the evidence, the facts, reality. You agree that eohippus is less different from wolf than some dog varieties are. That is our starting point. Do you agree that the difference between eohippus and mesohippus is also less than the difference from wolf to some dog breed/s?If you agree then we know that evolution from eohippus to mesohippus was possible. We don't need to look at the intermediate fossils, because we know that dogs are in fact related to wolves. Not for that reason, no, that just indicates the time frame for the existence of the cat and me.We also do not assume a direct relationship because the morphological similarities between human and cat are more than the morphological similarities between wolf and any dog species. This indicates that cats are less related to humans than dogs are to wolf.We are however, talking about horses and horse fossils, where numerous morphologically similar skeletons are found associated in time (layers) and location (habitats) AND they show less variation that that between wolf and dog breeds.Regardless of what species taxonomists classify the various fossils under, we can define a boundary around fossils such that the variety of fossils in any one particular time is less than the variety between dog breeds, and thus we can conclude that the fossils inside that boundary are a possible breeding population. We don't include cats and humans in that possible population because the differences fall outside the boundary. What the living evidence shows is the same kind and amount of evolution that we see in the fossil record from eohippus to mesohippus
That exact similarity is not extrapolation, that exact similarity is not imagination, that exact similarity is fact, known from looking at the evidence and making direct comparisons. Let's deal with the evidence from eohippus to mesohippus first, then we can move on to other transitions.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 precisely what I mean by your view being banally true: Here you have a living organism that is an intermediate form between a swimming fish with fins, and a walking amphibian organism with a functional arm. The fact of the functional arm is ignored in your response as you go off on an irrelevant tangent (all organisms in evolutionary relationships of descent with modification are fully formed and functional).We can also add Mud Skippers, which can live out of water, but are otherwise similar to the Spotted handfish, and thus demonstrating a clear path of evolution that is ongoing today.When you ignore the transition from species to species you cannot see the overall picture of change in hereditary traits in populations from one generation to the next.You are looking at a forest and only seeing the individual trees, and you claim there is no forest because trees only grow as individuals.Banally true does not mean universally true, it means you ignore the rest of the picture to focus on only one element.The other thing that these pictures and existing species show is exactly the same evolutionary developments as the transitional fossils: fins become arms, organism becomes able to live out of water.Tiktaalik
VentastegaIt's the same evolution: change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The only difference for modern organisms is that there is already competition on land.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) • • •

People, we seem to be wandered far from the topic: dogs, evolution of dogs into the varieties we know, and how that compares to evolution in other organisms.The ultimate goal is to show that the evolution of dogs is not limited by creationist myth conceptions, but can evolve into something that we would call something else.Enjoy.

In Message 1 we have the initial thesis:

quote:

---

A common creationist argument is that evolution does not show that a sufficient level of change can be demonstrated to have occurred in the fossil record, and that thousands of years of breeding of dogs has not produced something that is not a dog:

"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog?"
Beretta, Message 7

​

There are several issues involved in this question. One is just how much change is necessary to convince a creationist that large scale change has occurred. Another is whether macroevolution is defined by large scale change.

​

A final one is determining what you really means by "something that is not a dog" as "something" is not a very well defined scientific term. Do you mean when will a dog become a new species that is not a part of the wolf species (which we take as the basal dog from which all others have descended)? Or that it will become something that is as different from a wolf as say a domestic cat is from a fox?

---

We then looked at ancestral horse fossils, specifically eohippus (Hyracotherium), to see how similar it is to modern dogs in Message 12:

quote:

---

Love to see it...

​

The starting point is a comparison of these two skeletons}

​

http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~crd/skeldog.html

quote:

---

​

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

---

​

and (sorry it's so dark, but I wanted the same general "pose" for the skeletons)

​

Eohippus | Size & Facts | Britannica

quote:

---

​

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

---

​

This establishes the basis for showing an example of the development of a unique feature that did not exist before. We have to start before the feature existed eh?

---

And this has been repeated in Message 42

quote:

---

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-07

​

Are 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?

---

In Message 43 Beretta concedes that it is less:

quote:

---

Are the differences between dog and eohippus more or less than the variation we see in dogs?

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

Is eohippus similar in size, body proportions, feet, tail, etc to dog or not?

Yes their bones are pretty similar.

---

Since then we have been trying to move from eohippus to mesohippus on the same basis.Here is some additional information on Mesohippus:Requested Page Not Found (404)

quote:

---

Mesohippus was a greyhound-sized horse that lived from the early Chadronian to Whitneyan (39-30 mya) in the central Great Plains of North America. This tiny creature was just as gracful as modern horses, but it had three toes per foot instead of one. Unlike modern horses, Mesohippus had low crowned (brachyodont) teeth.

---

Compared to:

(Eohippus),
versus Wolf compared to dog:
And that is where we have been stuck for the last 100 posts or so.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) • • •

In Message 153 I restated what the topic is. Not one post since has addressed the thesis.Simply put, the variety we see in dogs shows the minimum limits of evolution within a species.Simply put, when we see less variation between species than we see within dogs, then we KNOW that this amount of variation is possible by normal evolution.Simply put, it is just a process of stepping through the fossil evidence to show that, among many other possible examples we could use, horses can be descended from eohippus (Hyracotherium).Simply put, this kind of demonstration SHOULD be sufficient to demonstrate that "macroevolution" is nothing special.Simply put, this is what this thread is about: demonstrating macroevolution step by step.Enjoy.

We have complete skeletons of intermediate equiids, and they can show (1) similarity between species / intermediate forms on the same order as we have for dogs and wolf (2) specific elements of teeth, jaw and hoof can show a "family" similarity between species that also mark them as different from dog, wolf, and from other life forms existing in the same area and time.If we were going to do a really complete analysis we would want to measure bone for bone on the skeletons, to see changes in absolute size and in proportions to be able to generate the kind of grid that was done for house cat and red fox I am not aware of any genetic data on hyracotherium or mesohippus. This is one of the problems with trying to apply the genetic definition of evolution to fossils, so we have to use the information that is available. What the variation between dogs and wolves show is a range of variation possible for any species, thus we can look at all the fossils in an area and time and sort them into groups based on whether the variation between {A} and {B} is greater or lesser than the variation between dogs and wolves (or as mentioned to Beretta, from wolf to dog₁ or dog₂ rather than ∑[dogs]), and what this shows is probable relationships at the scale above species, the scale where "macroevolution" occurs and where creationists point to "large scale change". And that is the essence of the argument: the range of variation around hyracotherium provided by dogs includes Mesohippus, with Orohippus in between to form a bridge that shows closer lineage from eohippus to mesohippus than to other forms of life from that time and area.Without genetic data, this is the kind of evidence we have.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) • • •

Hi AlphaOmegakid, thanks for your interest in this thread, however I have one small problem. It seems you are taking "potshots" at details and not addressing the issue.These "potshots" then lead to off-topic replies from other posters. This is the kind of comment I mean: rather than address the issue of evolution of dogs and horses you want to talk about something else, something that is off topic.In response to this, it seems that you are guilty of the category error, for, as I am the person that defined this thread I get to define the category - not you. Please read Message 1 and adjust your response to the topic's intentionally narrow scope - the original thesis is a response to the question by Beretta:

quote:

---

"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog?"

---

The question that we need to deal with first then is what is "clearly not a dog?" Please feel free to start a thread on that, rather than clog this thread up with more off topic issues. You are quibbling about classification of species in genus categories and not about bacteria to man ... or put another way, you are not addressing the issue but taking potshots at details. Horses, however, evolved hooves from dog-like paws, and that happens to be part of this thread's topic: care to address the topic?From Message 154
Agreed. Thus this amount of variation between two similar fossils species is entirely possible under "micro"evolution, and we can connect fossil to fossil to fossil by this amount of variation as time passes. That's not the question at all. The question is whether the amount of variation known in dogs is sufficient to demonstrate that the evolution of the modern horse from eohippus is just a matter of the same variation within dogs as we proceed through the fossils in time. So? We have two kinds of "speciation" in the fossil record, one is arbitrary - where enough variations have accumulated that the latest fossil does not resemble the first in the series, and we call it a new species for the sake of identification. This allows us to talk about hyracotherium and mesohippus and not have to talk about the significant differences between them to clarify what we are talking about. This is all that all taxon classifications are - convenient labels to distinguish what we are talking about.The other kind of "speciation" in the fossil record is non-arbitrary - where a single population divides into two or more distinct daughter populations that are different enough that this shows they did not share hereditary information. For instance you can take any two isolated dog breeds and form hybrids, and the hybrids will show a mix of traits that bridge the morphology of one to the other, but as long as you keep them reproductively isolated they will continue to have divergent morphologies. No, the question -- the issue of this thread -- is not the variation we have in dogs or in horses today, but how we got from something like a dog less than 55 million years ago to something like modern day horses: by "micro"evolution in stages from one "species" to the next with variation that does not exceed the variation seen in dogs, or is there some other mechanism involved. Message 156
Message 163
And this is a problem how? The issue is not about how big eohippus was, but whether we can show evolution by stages of variation similar to dogs from eohippus to modern horse. Does the size change what the fossil is? Let's stop doing the pot-shots on details and deal with the issue eh? Since you started on this thread we have essentially gone from 150 posts to 200 posts without addressing the topic, and while you are not the only one to make off-topic posts, yours are the root cause of the others.The issue is whether we can step from equid fossil to equid fossil while staying within the amount of variation seen in dogs and by the use of these "stepping stones" of possible variation get from eohippus to modern horse.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 AlphaOmegaKid, This would be critical if dogs weren't selected, particularly the breeds, to be dogs, and "abnormal" ones with different numbers of toes, say, actively selected out of the gene pool. Such mutations that cause +/- numbers of repeated items do occur, but three toed dogs will not be chosen "best of breed" eh?This article about a dog missing toes on it's feet show that such mutations do occur occasionally in dogs. Also google "dog polydactyly" to see examples of extra toes. It happens. Yes, what we see in evolution is evolution, curious fact eh? It is curious that you say we see "substantial changes in skull shapes" and then contradict this with "we do not see specialized features ..." when the shape of the skull is a specialized feature: the shape of the bulldog face compared to that of a greyhound, for example, is specialized for that particular breed and is distinctive morphological change. These skull shapes are hereditary (or they would not be particular to the breed) and we do not see such skull differences within the variation of wolves, so they are de facto due to hereditary change since divergence from wolves.Changing the number of repetitions of various parts is not necessary to show morphological change. It is one type of change that usually gets classified as a species difference when it is across the population, but it is not necessary for speciation.Changing of shapes of bones is a morphological change that would show up in the fossil record, and is another type of change that can be used to differentiate species when it is across the population, but is not necessary for speciation.Changing the proportions of lengths of different bones compared to other bones in the same organism is a morphological change that would show up in the fossil record, and is another type of change that can be used to differentiate species when it is across the population, but is not necessary for speciation.Change in overall size is a morphological change that would show up in the fossil record, and is another type of change that can be used to differentiate species when it is across the population, but is not necessary for speciation.What we see in dogs compared to humans is irrelevant to the topic. Irrelevant. Every fossil of every organism shows beneficial hereditary traits: they lived. Every fossil of every organism that shows morphological differences from other fossils therefore meets your criteria. Every living organism shows beneficial hereditary traits: they live. Every living organism that shows morphological differences from other living organism therefore meets your criteria. Personally I don't care one tiny hoot whether you are convinced or not, because your opinion is irrelevant to what the evidence shows. If you believed that the earth is flat, this would not suddenly be true. But we do see a horse ancestor that has "paws" similar to modern dogs, both in numbers of toes and in the particular stance of these animals on the toes, and we do see horse evolution from toes to hooves over a period of 55 million years, a period of time rather significantly longer than the time that dogs breeds have existed distinct from wolves. Not really. You are still dancing around the issue.Dogs in their variety and breeds define a range of variations. The question is whether this range of variations is more or less than the difference between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus.Is the difference in skulls of Hyracotherium and Mesohippus more or less than the variation seen in dogs?Is the difference in size of Hyracotherium and Mesohippus more or less than the variation seen in dogs?Is the difference in proportions of different bones of Hyracotherium and Mesohippus more or less than the variation seen in dogs?Yes or no?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) • • •

Is still irrelevant to the thesis that variations in dogs is more than the variation between species on ancestor horses, specifically hyracotherium (eohippus) and mesohippus.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) • • •