Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

Hi, RAZD,I'm going to jump in here even though I've read about 1/3 rd of this thread. It appears to me you are arguing that observable dog evolution is far broader than the changes within the horse evolution. However to me it looks like you are confirming the creationist point of view rather than refuting it.Dog evolution is undeniably microevolution. The many dog breeds are the same species. Dogs also can interbreed with wolves, indicating common ancestry and possibly that they are actually the same species.The question is not how much a given genome can change under microevolution. (creationists agree with microevolution) The question is the ablility of your horse to interbreed with other horses during it's era. You see all scientists have is the bones. When they see slight changes in those bones, then they declare a new species. However, there is no real test for species. There is not even a non-equivocating definition of what a species is.So scientist have many horse species, when in reality they may be just different "breeds" of horses all coming from one horse ancestor. Just like the dogs/wolves/foxes??.....???We have just as much variation in horse breeds today as we do in dog breeds. Miniatures to Clydesdales. They vary widely. The question is not the skeletal variations, the question is genetic reproduction.
Is it truly macroevolution or is it just a different type of horse.The other problem you have is you are assuming the three toed horse evolved into the one toed horse of today. There is alot of evidence that refutes that.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

RAZDYou do realize that Eohippus is about 8"inches tall and maybe 12" long. It was smaller than most chihuahuas. It was never the size of a "fox terrier" as your textbook may say. It actually is half that size.

Yes, but creationist agree with evolution. Infact they require it. They just don't agree with one common ancestor. They see many common ancestors. Zorses an Zeedonks are well within the creationists framework. They have a common ancestor from the "horse kind". Either way, biological evolutionary science is one of the few sciences that allows such "broad" definition with no boundaries. Therefore there is no falsification of the theory, because the definition of the theory allows equivocation. I personnaly reject theories that are based on faulty logical reasoning. But heh, that's just my way of reasoning. I would tend to agree with you here. That's why I used the ?? after the word fox. However there is some evidence of hybridization even though it hasn't been studied to my knowledge.Canid hybrid - Wikipedia

Hyracotherium / eohippusDo you see the 20 cm. That's approximately 8". I don't know too many mid-sized dogs that are 8" tall do you?from wiki... Hyracotherium - Wikipedia The length stated is over three times the height. Proportionally this is not correct. The length includes a fully extended neck and fully extended long tail. The actual body size was about 50% loger than the shoulder height. Which I correctly stated as about 12" or 30 cm.Do you see the .4 mm lenth? That's about 14" long. I was a couple short maybe. source from the above wiki page.Edited by Admin, : Rerender to be mobile friendly.

Maybe you should ask these people... from... Species concept - WikipediaPlease note, that I am not quotemining here. These quotes address the problem that the quoter was arguing about. I also used a supposedly non-biased source. Here is what is listed under the definition of species.... There are 13 different definitions/explanations of what a species is. So you can pick and choose whichever you like, depending on what you want to demonstrate. That's called "loose logic" or equivocation.The definition of macro evolution is dependent on the definition of species. So evidence of macro evolution can be interpreted without limit, because there is no limit on the definition of species.But if you want to follow this logic, that's OK with me.Please note, I am not trying to get off topic, i am just answering your question.

Yes, horses have hooves. Have you ever considered that the other creatures, that look vastly different from a horse, just may not be horses. They may not be ancestors to horses. They may just be another creature that has no evolutionary history related to modern day horses.Could it be possible that you are forcing the evolution theory into the fossil record of these creatures.The evolutionist perpective of linear progression of slow gradual horse evolution has all but been abandoned today for the "branch bush" theory.The new theories on this have many branches and many required unfound transitionals. Just maybe, could they be unrelated in the first place? What you were most likely taught in schools about this linear progression has been declared by science to be erroneous. Couldn't the "branching bush" theory be just as erroneous.

That's a really good question. I will try to dress my answer up nicely so that you might think it is "suitable".The answer lay in the concept of genetic capacity. There is a limit to any genome. Now science is very young here, but you will see this term used widely in the literature. It always reflects a limit within the genome.For instance, in dog evolution, you can get a great dane, but you cannot get a dog the size of brontasaurus. The same applies in the opposite direction, you cannot get a dog the size of an ant. There is a limit on size as well as just about every other feature of the dog.You can breed cows to produce more milk, but there is a limit to how much milk any cow can produce.Now to have evolution in the first place you need mutations, drift, and selection. In every documented case of a "beneficial" mutation the genetic capacity for the benefit is existant in the population. That means that if that beneficial trait is selected then certain other traits are lost in the non beneficial populations. Over time, genetic capacity is diminished and not increased.That is exactly what we see in dog evolution, as well as every other observable evolution. We see chihuahuas that wouldn't make it a week in the wild. We also see thoroughbreds that have substantial other medical issues because they have lost their capacity to fight those diseases.We see the gentic capacity of certain traits selected from a population, but we never see the genetic capacity of the entire genome increased. That is what is needed to produce the type of evolution from bacteria to man. Simple genetic capacities increasing over time. But we do not see this in nature. What we see in nature is degradation and stasis. We don't see the gradual increasing of genetic capacities. But we do see big imaginations.The example I like to use is that is you take a miniature poodle and breed it with a wolf type dog. You can eventually breed it back similar to the wolf type dog. But if you take two miniature poodles, and continue to breed them, you will never get back to a wolf type dog. The genetic capacity has been lost and limited.Now since most of you believe that horses evolved from eohippus then it should be easy to present evidence of actual beneficial mutations within horses. Any takers???

I will try to do my best to decipher this....I'm afraid you are very wrong about macro evolution "depending crucially on the fact that there are no sharp lines between species." Actually the opposite is true. Macro evolution is defined by the clear distinction of species.And yes we have to rely on the human mind for these classification systems. Unless of course you want to let the chimps design one for us.Now creationists do use scientific terms. They are not opposed to science in any way. However, they are opposed to some logic used by some scientists. Creationists don't oppose speciation. In fact they agree with it. They just believe that one "kind" of an animal doesn't evolve into another "kind". They believe there is a limiting capacity to the genome that was designed by the designer. That's what we see in nature.I'm afraid even I can't decipher the last sentence. Maybe I'll ask my dog!

Simply put, you have a category error. You are confusing variety in the genome with macro evolution which involves the addition of substantial amounts of information to the genome. Yes wide varieties can happen in microevolution through different alleles and recombination. But dogs won't grow wings or lay eggs.This is the macro evolution you are talking about in bacteria to man evolution. This requires beneficial mutations to be selected by nature and prior genetic traits to be elliminated from the populations. For instance with dogs, you don't see one dog being born with two toes or one toe/hoove and it being beneficial. If we did, then I might agree with you. If we have seen any evidence of beneficial mutations in horses that have been or potentially are being naturally selected then I think you would have an argument. But we don't observe this. Unless of course you can provide some evidence of this. Simply put, you have differing fossils at different levels geologically, and vastly different locations geographically, and with this you have alot of imagination. Simply put, this demonstration is probably sufficient for you and many other who have been trained with this type of reasoning. This demonstration shows very little about macro evolution. Even if I did agree with you here, you would still start with a creature that looks pretty much like a horse (miniature) and you will end with a creature that looks pretty much like a horse (gigantic.However that is not what macroevolution is about. Macro evolution is about polygenic morphologies suddenly appearing in the fossil record. For instance hooves. A hoove is probably not created with one allele of one gene. A hoove is most likely a poly genic morphology, just as a toe is. There must be multiple (thousands maybe) of mutations to create such a thing. There also may be completely new genes relative to the toes. (the average gene is greater that 1000 bases) So the evidence that needs to be shown is how such morphologies can be genetically created in the first place. Maybe if you could show one beneficial mutation in the horse family for instance that has or is being naturally selected.The imagination of morphologies will eventually be overturned by genetic evidence.(my prediction). Just this month in Science magazine, there is an article that examined 32 kilobases (just a fraction) from 169 bird species. What this study showed is that vastly morphologically different species are often more closely related than similar morphological species. ("A Phylogeneic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History")The bottom line is that morphologies are not necessarily an accurate indicator of genetic ancestry.

Your observation may be partially correct. As you know, most of the time in these types of forums, people with my perpectives are under attack. There are more of you than me. I only have so much time, so I try to target my replies. I will try and address yours if you will be patient with me. Sorry.

First off your cat didn't develop a new feature like a hoove. It had a mutation that effected an existing feature...the toe.Secondly, you need to kill the cats and bury them. Then in another million years someone will uncover them and declare a new cat species.Thirdly, why are you calling this six toed creature a cat? It certainly is a unique species and transitional creature isn't it?
Oh wait, it can still interbreed with five toed cats. You see this is simple. But with a fossil, we have no record of its genetic ability to reproduce. All we have is the fossils. We really don't know it's ancestry. The rest is imagination and assumption.

To succinctly address what you declare is your central issue the answer in NO. We do not see dog evolution changing from "toes" to hooves. We do not see dog evolution change the number of rib bones multiple times. We do not see dog evolution changing the numer of vertebrae multiple times. We do see size changes. We see all kinds of colors and textures of hair. And we see substantial changes in skull shapes. What we see in dog evolution is variation in gene alleles. We do not see specialized features from new genes. We see no more morphological variation in dogs than we do in humans. We have giants and dwarfs. We have all colors of skin and all kinds of variation in hair. We see people with differnt number of toes and fingers, But we don't see people with hooves. And if we did, we wouldn't see them be positively selected by nature. We do see many negative mutations but we don't see any beneficial mutations that are morphological.In fact I challenge you to cite a human, dog, or horse mutation that has been identified as "beneficial" and is morphological. Note the term morphological. This is what can be seen in the fossil record.That is the type of evidence you need to convince me that this type of evolution is possible. Without this evidence you just have your imagination.Now I hope you agree this addresses your main thesis..

You talk as if beneficial mutations are all around us. Please note that the "easy" challenge was to show mutations identified as being "beneficial" and "morphological".Let me clarify for you and every one else!All of you can go to your pet websites and retrieve just HUGE lists of identified beneficial mutations. By HUGE lists I mean there are thousands of them, right????? Now I agree that in some cases beneficial mutations have been identified. Not in all. Because to be a mutation in the first place, the allele couldn't have existed in the population. I f this evidence is presented, and evidence that a new allele has mutated in the population, and evidence that the new mutation yields a reproductive advantage, then I think we can justifiably show that that mutation is beneficial.Now the second criterion is that this "beneficial" mutation yield a morphology that can be detected in the fossil record. A1-Mulano for instance would not show in the fossil record.So the challenge is to show scientific evidence that identifies a mutation as being "benefical" and "morphoogical".If you can do this then I think we have a reasonable argument for looking at all the morphological changes in the fossil record and assuming that they are indeed evolutionary changes.Now let me also make sure that you understand the logical fallacy that the interpretation of evidence is not evidence. So you are going to have a hard time with me using the interpretation of the fossil record as evidence. I will let you use the bones and dating of the bones as evidence, but the interpretation of that evidence is not evidence. (otherwise you have circular reasoning which I'm sure no evoists use, right???) So if I look at the evidence you presented, it appears to me that you presented a string of interpretations of evidence as evidence. That may work for you, but it doesn't for a logician.Now to the contrary or the opposite of my request. I can show you many examples of negative mutations that are identified as such and are indeed morphological. (frogs with one leg longer than the other, tortoises with two heads ect.) These mutations could show up in the fossil record if they were fossilized. I also can show you many neutral mutations that are morphological. (dog evolution for example....micro evolution)But what I want to see is "beneficial" morhological changes that nature would select for. Are there any? Don't use the fossil record, then interpret it as your evidence. Use an observable repeatable experiment, or show an allele that is new and has been selected in recent years in the population. There are some "beneficial" mutations that fit this criteria. The only problem is do they fit the second criteria as being morphological?Have fun researching!

No, I asked for "beneficial" mutations that were morphological and could show in the fossil record. Advantageous mutations are not necesarrily "beneficial". You need beneficial mutations to get from bacteria to man. Try and concentrate, all of you, on this criteria. This is an interesting statement, although factually unsupported. Your cited study certainly doesn't suggest this. This your study says, and I probably agree with. However, it doesn't address my challenge. Yes, and this natural process is called intelligent design. It is not natural selection. Even Darwin distinguished the differences.And No, there are many animals that we breed that have just as much morphological variety as dogs. Horses and cattle for example. Even humans have as much variety.(giants to dwarfs, all kinds of colors shapes and hairyness) Some with big noses and some with small. Dogs ability to mutate along the germline does not extend and change their collective genetic capacity. In fact it diminishes it. That's why breeders breed male and female from the same breed. They do this, because the results are that the offspring are from the same breed. Otherwise they would go out of business. The genetic capacity has been reduced relative to the parent capacity of the wolf.

Hey doc. Did you read this citation? I doubt you did. You're an evo not willing to spend the $32.00 just like before you couldn't look up a cited Science article. But I guess you think you have something here.Unfortunately, there is no mention of mutation in the abstract even the word evolution is not used. Selection is used though. In general this is a behavioural trait of the algae. Have you heard of Lamarck? There are such things a behavioural adaptations that aren't genetic.You evidently have the Lamrckian ability to waste a significant amount of your time debating with creos. However, you can train your kids and your disciples in that, but you cannot pass it on in your genes.I'm sorry, but you are going to have to provide evidence that this organization of algae cells was mutational. No, in short I hope to open your eyes to the fact that you call billions of fossil as evidence of "beneficial" mutational morphological change. Yet the real world evidence of "beneficial" mutational morphological evidence that would show up un the fossil record is vacuous.