Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

I will be replying to your post with multiple posts due to time constraints. Not because I am avoiding anything.Now as far as missing the point, you did. There is no question that mutations can cause extra digits. And as you noted intelligent selection removes them from the population. What we don't see in any vertabrate is extra digits being naturally selected within the populations.You seem to think, as many scientists do that the fossil record somehow declares ancestorship. It doesn't. That is an interpretation of the fossil record. First we were presented with linear trees of this horse ancestorship. These pictures are still taught today. This was an interpretation of the fossils. Today with cladistics we have a branching tree of horse evolution. That is an interpretation of the evidence. A creationist interpretation would be one where the "branches" may represent different kinds of animals. The cladistic chart represents the same thing except it has one common ancestor eohippus. The creationist chart would have multiple trunks. In the case of the 55my charts, the creationist chart may only have 2-4 kinds. Not every fossil find is a different type of animal.Please note that both modern science and creationism agree with certain aspects of evolution. It is a strawman argument to suggest otherwise. I know of no reputable creationist website that doesn't agree with observable repeatable micrevolution.Interpretation of evidence is not evidence. (I will repeat this many times, as it is a common misunderstanding of science and logic.) Again, I will repeat for you and all the readers. I and most of all creos agree with evolution. We disagree on the subjects of time and common ancestry. That's all. That makes it simple.But you ignored my point. If genes exist to create bones and skulls, the alterations (extremely small alterations) to those genes can happen that cause the bones to be bigger and smaller. That is microevolution (observable and repeatable). The creation within the genome of multiple new genes for polygenetic traits like hooves is macroevolution. This we don't see (observable and repeatable) happening in nature. We only see it (observable but not repeatable) in the fossil record. The fossil record relies on interpretation.

You are making the common creationist error often made with "assumption." Just because scientists use a particular assumption in a line of reason doesn't automatically make it incorrect. Likewise, because a theory is an "interpretation" of a particular set of facts does not make that interpretation automatically incorrect.In fact, creationists often use "theory" and "assumption" interchangeably to mean "its wrong because scripture says so and we know that, and you can't prove it anyway." Now you are adding "interpretation" to this list. But creationists have yet to propose a mechanism whereby all of those micros are prohibited from forming a macro over time. They repeatedly state that macros can't happen, but have yet to provide a mechanism that prevents them. And it is creationist nonsense. Feel free to repeat it as much as you like.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Yeah, it is common. You, for example, just messed the two up.You are making the common creationist muddle between prediction and interpretation.The theory of evolution predicts that we should see exactly the sort of morphological sequences that we do see. In order to check that we see these morphological sequences, it is not necessary to assume that they are, nor to interpret them as, lines of descent. We just need to check that they are there.In the same way, we can check the prediction of the theory of gravity that planets should travel in ellipses without assuming that this is down to gravity, or interpreting this as a result of gravity. We simply ask: "Do we see what the prediction says we should see?" We can, if we wish, check the correctness of this prediction although we ourselves are firmly personally convinced that the planets are pushed around by angels. We don't have to interpret the motion of the planets as being caused by gravitation in order to check that the theory of gravity makes the correct predictions about their motion.Once we are convinced that the theory of evolution is correct, by observing the invariable success of its predictions, then we can use the theory to interpret the fossils, and start interpreting them as being (something close to) a line of descent. Who are these "many" silly scientists? Can you quote any of them? Yes. That's what we do after we have been convinced by the evidence that the theory is correct. I answered your line/bush confusion in an earlier post. Of course Equus has a line of descent. This is not contradicted by the observation that the family tree of the basal form has branches. These are not competing ideas, they are both true. Can you show me any creationist website, reputable or otherwise, that will tell me where microevolution stops and macroevolution starts, by any genetic or morphological criterion? We can certainly see the evolution of polygenetic traits. See, for example, our recent excitement over the evolution of a form of E. coli that can eat citrate.---Now doubtless RAZD is going to tell us that we're off topic. If there is any particular issue that you'd like to confuse, start a thread and I shall do my best to unconfuse you.

Your argument seems to give ANYONE the ability to be a scientist. If all you have to do is observe something, then hell we can ALL be scientist.As in any field that deals with evidence (i.e CSI, forensics, Lawyers etc...), it is the ability of experts to INTERPRET evidence that makes the evidence worthy.Here again, ALL evidence relies on interpretation, thats what the evidence is collected for, to be interpreted. However, evidence in all fields are only to be interpreted by those who are qualified to interpret them.All you have done is viewed the same evidence and interpreted it in your own way...so I will then say to you in your own words,YOUR, What makes your interpretation of evidence better or more reliable?ttyl...

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I know this is off topic, but your question is important. Anyone can do science, but we are not all "qualified" scientists. Actually most of us are like the jurors in a CSI case. There are always two sets of "qualified" experts. One for the defence and on for the plaintiff. I hope you don't think that there aren't christian creationist scientists, because they are many. Certainly a minority, but many.As jurors, we listen to the "experts" and then we make up our minds.
I personally work with in a scientific field. I do "science" everyday, but I am not a scientist as most in this forum obviously are not. For me, I'm a logician. When I see logical problems, I start to question. With evolution we have a multitude of logical problems....Natural selection is a tautology.
Homologies are circular reasoned.
Vesigial features are circular reasoned.
The geological column is circular reasoned.
And genetic evidence of evolution is tautological.If there was just one logical problem, then I could maybe see the rational, but everything in TOE is either circular reasoning or tautologies. Now I know this is way off topic, but this is my reasoning for rejecting one common ancestor. Nope. I listen and study both sides of the argument. Then I make my decisions. If you do the same, I have no problem with that. If you have not studied creationism, then you have limited yourself to just one paradigm of understanding the world we live. It's not any "better" and it's not mine. Again, I do make my decisions by listening to the "experts". I accept information from both sides not one. In most cases one side is not right all the time.It's interesting to me your signature quotes..."All great truths begin as blasphemies" - This certainly was true with Christ and with Darwin. This statement is one of rebellion against the system. In today's scientific world, I would be the rebel, not you. You are mainstream."I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth." That is also a rebellious statement. In the 60's such a person would be a rebel. Today, this is pretty much mainstream. I don't smok pot. Today, I would be the rebel, and you would be mainstream."I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"-- Again a rebellious statement. I hope you are questioning ToE. If you aren't then it appears to me that you are a pretty mainstream.

Now, if only you could prove any of that instead of just saying it ... then maybe you'd have a point.Feel free to start a thread on any of these subjects.

Anyone can do science if they follow the scientific method. Creationists tend not to do that.Have you ever looked at the "Statements of Faith" or the equivalent of the "scientists" on Answers in Genesis and several other similar websites? Those statements of belief actually prohibit their members from following the scientific method. Here is a link to the Statements of Belief of the Creation Research Society. See how much science you find there. Nonsense. That's creation "science" rather than real science.For a lot more information on this see the Index of Creationist Claims.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I suggest that you spin off these claims into a separate thread.I also suggest that any further obvious off topic discussion will get a short suspension first and a warning second for anyone going off topic.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If genes exist to create bones and skulls, the alterations (extremely small alterations) to those genes can happen that cause the bones to be bigger and smaller. That is microevolution (observable and repeatable). The creation within the genome of multiple new genes for polygenetic traits like hooves is macroevolution

---

But there doesn't seem to be a qualitative difference. Evolving a hoof is a reduction in the number of digits to one and an enlargement of the toenail on that digit. (Horses still have remnants of two other digits in their legs - the splint bones).So why isn't evolving a hoof from a three-toed foot microevolution ?

Hi AlphaOmegaKid, Good, because I would rather focus on one step at a time, rather than a flood of information that explodes as others reply in different ways to different aspects. I would appreciate it if you focused on the topic and not answer any replies to your comments that are not directly related to the topic: whether mesoohippus is more or less different from eohippus than the variation we see in dogs from wolf. The issue is not what you think, what creationists say, the history of horse taxonomy, or where you want to redirect the discussion, the issue is whether eohippus is more or less different from mesohippus than the variation we see in dogs from wolf. Note that both of these pictures are of actual fossil skeletons in similar positions and angle of view.Questions for you to direct your answers to are:(1) Are these, or are they not, similar animals? If not, what are the differences?(2) Are the differences seen more, or less, than the differences seen in dogs from wolf? If more, what are the differences and how do they exceed the variation seen in dogs from wolf. And all we are interested in, is whether the variation from eohippus to mesohippus is more or less than the variation seen in dogs from wolf. This sets an objective standard that doesn't rely on subjective interpretation.So is mesohippus more or less different from eohippus than the variation we see in dogs from wolf?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : moved photos

---

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) • • •

Ok, I'm going to anwer you, but you're not going to like my answer.The answerer is More. More. and More.I'm not sure how familiar you are with horse evolution, but actually there are supposed transitionals between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus. Here is the sopposed lineage... Hyracotherium, Orohippus,Epihippus and the Mesohippus. I will refer to these as H,O,E and M.Now as far as archetype you could say that these organisms are similar. The size variation, main skull shape and overall shape of the organism is within what we see with wolf/dog evolution.However there are many things that we don't see within wolf/dog evolution.First the rib count sequence of H-O-E-M is 18-15-16-16. We don't see those kind of changes in the populations of wolf/dog evolution. We see stasis in the overall rib count of the population. What would be the fitness benefit to loosing three ribs, then gaining one?Second, the hind toe count of H-O-E-M is 4-4-4-3. We don't see a loss of toe digits being beneficial in wolf/dog evolution. We see stasis in these feature within the populations. Again, a loss of digit is usally seen as a negative mutation. Certainly not beneficial. What would be the fitness benefit of loss of a toe?Third, the tooth sequences vary substantially. From the sequence of incisor-canine-premolar-grinding molar we see the following: H=3-1-4-3, O=3-1-3-4, and E=3-1-2-5, M I couldn't find. Again we see stasis in wolf/dog teeth. In fact dog diets have changed substantially over about 2000 known years of history, and the teeth have shown stasis.Now the teeth and the toes are the main evidence used for evolution support. But we don't see (observable and repeatable) that in wolf/dog evolution.Enjoy!Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : wording corrections

Okay, let's see if I've got this right.Stasis: Macroevolution:

It seems like the tooth count would indicate a progression to adapt to more vegetarian diet. Can you be more specific as to how Dog diet has changed in the last two thousand years? Seems like dog food has not been around for that long for adaptation to be a factor. Also do you think two thousand years (I don't know why you picked that number) is really enough time to see marked changes in tooth structure? Where is the enviromental pressure for changes in tooth structure?

No you didn't get it right. But reading the post may help you.

You're just a troll, aren't you?