The creationist will just say that is microevolution, and that what they want is evidence that macroevolution occurs.
False.
Creationism rejects microevolution. There are some Creationists of the Fundamentalist nature that do accept microevolution, just like Atheist evolutionism accepts microevolution. But these "Creationists" are the exception based on their affinity with Atheist evolutionism.
Creationism says that each species owe their existence to special creation.
This thread is to define what "large scale change" means in reality and then see how it is shown in the fossil record.
The undisturbed fossil record as seen in the crust of the Earth shows species appearing, changing slightly, then disappearing. No evolution is seen. The same proves special creation. The fact of IC explains why evolution is not seen in the crust of the Earth. All of the same corroborates special creation to be a scientific fact.
Creationism says that each species owe their existence to special creation.
How many of these species were saved from the flood by the ark? How does that number of species compare to the number of observed species today?
If there is no material difference in number, how did you fit, feed and care for that number on the ark? If there is a material difference in number, what mechanism has created so many species today compared to Noachian times?
Creationism rejects microevolution. There are some Creationists of the Fundamentalist nature that do accept microevolution, just like Atheist evolutionism accepts microevolution. But these "Creationists" are the exception based on their affinity with Atheist evolutionism.
Creationism says that each species owe their existence to special creation.
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).
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:
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.
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).
First of all Razd your knolwedge on evolution is outstanding.
I have read the entire thread and your posts have been extremely eye-opening and logical.
I was about 50-50 split between evolution and creation but after reading your posts I'm a lot more convinced about evolution.
The information about dogs was extremely intresting. Especially how the 5th toe is missing on some and useless in others.
I've always wondered about dogs and evolution because there is such a variety and they seem to all be the same species.
To answer the original question, what could a dog become, I think the logical conclusion, if dogs keep being trained by humans and coexisting with us (which is a safe assumption they will) will be for dogs to have bigger heads, have less hair (since we take care of them more they are less oudoors or even wear clothing) and will develop the ability to communicate with us probably speech (some dogs already try to).
How long before we can expect that change to happen? 10,000 years? maybe 100,000 years?
I think there are some problems with this. Firstly people like dogs coats so there is going to be a strong selective pressure on many species to maintain those coats.
As for speech, I would suspect that if people want talking dogs then a technological solution, or even possibly a genetically engineered one, could be reached well before evolution had a chance.
I've always wondered about dogs and evolution because there is such a variety and they seem to all be the same species.
To answer the original question, what could a dog become, I think the logical conclusion, if dogs keep being trained by humans and coexisting with us (which is a safe assumption they will) will be for dogs to have bigger heads, have less hair (since we take care of them more they are less oudoors or even wear clothing) and will develop the ability to communicate with us probably speech (some dogs already try to).
How long before we can expect that change to happen? 10,000 years? maybe 100,000 years?
Dogs and other human-bred organisms are interesting cases with regards to evolution. They don't need to be particularly well-adapted to any environment, they simply have to be desirable for humans. We use our technology to take care of the rest.
The future of dog breeds depends entirely on the desires of humans. We choose how they breed for the most part, so we are the real selective pressure. If we bred a dog that's really "cute" but has chrinic hip problems, the hip problems would normally be detrimental in the wild. But because the breed is "cute," we'll continue to breed it despite the hip problems.
The logical conclusion as to what dogs will look like at any point in the future would be "however humans continue to breed them." New breeds will likely be developed, but so long as existing breeds remain desireable to humans, those breeds won't change much.
First of all Razd your knolwedge on evolution is outstanding. I have read the entire thread and your posts have been extremely eye-opening and logical.
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 information about dogs was extremely intresting. Especially how the 5th toe is missing on some and useless in others.
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.
To answer the original question, what could a dog become, I think ... will develop the ability to communicate with us ...
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).
I was about 50-50 split between evolution and creation but after reading your posts I'm a lot more convinced about evolution.
Welcome to EvC, molbiogirl! Over time, you will find that this forum is a rich source of information from all over the net. I hope that you will have a pleasant time debating on these forums.
By the way, at the bottom right hand corner of every post, you will find this button
. By using this button to reply to a specific post, you will allow us to keep track of who's talking to who.
Again, welcome to the forum and have a nice day
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
That would logically mean that eohippus could have evolved into orohippus -- that this is possible, whether it actually occurred or not.
The operative word here is 'possible' -but possible is hypothetical and I think, quite possibly imaginary. We don't know whether it is possible -we can only imagine it to be so.
The vast variety shown amongst dogs really has little bearing on the argument because you are arguing for natural change by comparing it to the change brought about with purposeful breeding by intelligent agents. These intelligent designers select and then protect that which natural selection would have taken care of rather quickly. So variety in dogs would understandably be greater given all the characterisitcs breeders have to play with. The general trend in the fossil record taken as a whole appears to be resistance to change via natural selection so I really don't think it is logical to assume changes that cannot be proven to be so...
The operative word here is 'possible' -but possible is hypothetical and I think, quite possibly imaginary. We don't know whether it is possible -we can only imagine it to be so.
We know what is actually possible with dogs, and we have repeated this with foxes:
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 vast variety shown amongst dogs really has little bearing on the argument because you are arguing for natural change by comparing it to the change brought about with purposeful breeding by intelligent agents.
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).
So variety in dogs would understandably be greater given all the characterisitcs breeders have to play with.
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 general trend in the fossil record taken as a whole appears to be resistance to change via natural selection so I really don't think it is logical to assume changes that cannot be proven to be so...
The horse fossils disagree with you. Care to continue?
Hi Razd, Thanks for that -we have a slight problem with internet access around here at the moment so things are slow to get through if you get so lucky as to get anything...
We know that this is possible with dogs and we have repeated this with foxes
But the dogs are still dogs and the foxes are still foxes which means we are still using change within the kind to argue for change of a different as yet undemonstrated kind. Remarkable transformations within foxes shows large genetic variability and selection possibilities but it cannot be used to prove that frogs can change into people or anything else for that matter, even given millions of years. As for horse evolution - Henry Gee, a ”Nature’ science writer (though he doesn’t doubt Darwinian evolution), admits that “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate” (1999) “That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way.” According to Gee, we call new fossil discoveries ”missing links’ as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact shaped to accord with human prejudices.” He concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
As for the horse series, if one assumes Darwin’s theory to be true , fossils showing features that appear to be intermediate between hydracotherium through to modern horses can be strung together in a series but it is not a series of ancestors and descendants. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it.
One can assume that Darwin’s theory is true, and then try to fit the fossil evidence into the picture suggested by the theory. There’s nothing unreasonable about this -but lets state the reasoning up front. Theory rules even without evidence. Fossils cannot provide evidence for descent with modification even when they’re from the same species, much less when they’re from an entirely different species.
The horse fossils disagree with you.
Only if you assume Darwin’s theory is true . a philosophical assumption - and apply some imagination.
™ Version 4.2
