The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans

It's one thing to look at charts of descent, it's another to look at the actual bones of actual fossils. Let's start with a short comparison to dog variations. Creationists like to point to dogs and say that they show plenty of variation without becoming a new species.

Dog variation indeed shows how much phenotypes can vary within a species and still remain a species. Dog variation is achieved through artificial (man-made) selection, but it can show us what is possible in nature when we look at the evolution of species. We can use the variation observed in dogs as a metric for how much can occur within a species, and then look at the difference between species to see if that shows more or less variation than seen in dogs.

If we look at the variation in skeletons between Humans and Chimps (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

If we add Gorillas to the mix (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Now let's add a composite Australopithicus, based mostly on Lucy, but with parts added from other fossils, such as skull and feet (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Lets look at the first three with size appropriate scaled skeletons:

Again, is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Let's compare human to Homo habilis and Australopithicus (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Again, is the variation more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

And then we have Ardipiticus ramidus (Ardi), incomplete but we have enough to compare them to those above:

A reconstruction is also available:

Where the known bones are in place and the probable reconstruction is sketched in.

Let's put Ardi in a line-up with Humans, Australopithicus and Chimps (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation in traits seen in the bones between modern humans and Ardi more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Inquiring minds want to know.

If the variation between species seen in the fossil record is less than that seen in dogs, then it is logical and reasonable that the younger species can have evolved from the older species, especially if found in close proximity within the spacial-temporal matrix.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

Edited by RAZD, : pic

Edited by Admin, : Rerender to make mobile friendly.

If the variation between species seen in the fossil record is less than that seen in dogs, then it is logical and reasonable that the younger species can have evolved from the older species, especially if found in close proximity within the spacial-temporal matrix.

As we go further back in time the story of the bones gets more difficult, as many things conspire against finding fossils. Forests are poor hunting grounds due to acidic soils eating the calcium away, small populations in small localized areas make it a needle and haystack enterprise, and sheer age means less ability to find specimens.

What we can see however is this timeline for the fossils found to date:

quote:

---

Ardipithicus is a genus of an extinct hominine that lived during Late Miocene and Early Pliocene in Afar Depression, Ethiopia. Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the main ape lineage, the relation of this genus to human ancestors and whether it is a hominin is now a matter of debate.[1] Two fossil species are described in the literature: A. ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago[2] during the early Pliocene, and A. kadabba, dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago (late Miocene).[3] Behavioral analysis showed that Ardipithicus could be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behaviour.[1]

---

We also saw in Message 1 (bottom) that the pelvic structure for Ardipithicus was intermediate between chimps (Pan troglodytes) and Australopithicus (just as Australopithicus was intermediate between Ardipithicus and modern humans), and in fact one could see chimps would also have ancestors closer to our common ancestor, and that they could be more similar to Ardipithicus.

Certainly the variation between Ardipithicus and modern chimps (Pan troglodytes) is less than is seen in modern dog varieties.

So it would be possible for Ardipithicus to be a common ancestor with chimps, except that we have a better candidate with

quote:

---

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct homininae species (and is probably the ancestor to Orrorin) that is dated to about 7 million years ago, during the Miocene epoch, possibly very close to the time of the chimpanzee–human divergence. Few specimens are known, other than the partial skull nicknamed Toumaï ("hope of life").

Existing fossils include a relatively small cranium named Toumaï ("hope of life" in the local Daza language of Chad in central Africa), five pieces of jaw, and some teeth, making up a head that has a mixture of derived and primitive features. The braincase, being only 320 cm³ to 380 cm³ in volume, is similar to that of extant chimpanzees and is notably less than the approximate human volume of 1350 cm³.[citation needed]

The teeth, brow ridges, and facial structure differ markedly from those found in Homo sapiens. Cranial features show a flatter face, u-shaped dental arcade, small canines, an anterior foramen magnum, and heavy brow ridges. No postcranial remains have been recovered. The only known skull suffered a large amount of distortion during the time of fossilisation and discovery, as the cranium is dorsoventrally flattened, and the right side is depressed.[1]

Sahelanthropus tchadensis may have walked on two legs.[2] However, because no postcranial remains (i.e., bones below the skull) have been discovered, it is not known definitively whether Sahelanthropus was indeed bipedal, although claims for an anteriorly placed foramen magnum suggests that this may have been the case. Upon examination of the foramen magnum in the primary study, the lead author speculated that a bipedal gait "would not be unreasonable" based on basicranial morphology similar to more recent hominins.[1] Some palaeontologists have disputed this interpretation, stating that the basicranium, as well as dentition and facial features, do not represent adaptations unique to the hominin clade, nor indicative of bipedalism;[3] and stating that canine wear is similar to other Miocene apes.[1] Further, according to recent information, what might be a femur of a hominid was also discovered near the cranium—but which has not been published nor accounted for.[4]

---

Note that the "time of the chimpanzee–human divergence" is based on genetic analysis, and thus subject to a degree of skepticism, but a good ball-park estimate.

This is certainly well within the spacial-temporal matrix constraint for evolution to have evolved either or both branches of this part of the hominid tree.

Older fossils (Ouranopithecus and Nakalipithecus) are problematic.

quote:

---

Ouranopithecus is an extinct genus of Eurasian great ape represented by two species, Ouranopithecus macedoniensis, a late Miocene (9.6–8.7 mya) hominoid from Greece and Bulgaria,[1][2] and Ouranopithecus turkae, also from the late Miocene (8.7–7.4 mya) of Turkey.[3]

---

Those locations make it difficult to fit the spacial-temporal matrix, imho, so it could be an ape, but not in our lineage.

quote:

---

Nakalipithecus nakayamai is a prehistoric great ape species that lived in today's Kenya region early in the Late Miocene, 10 million years ago (mya).[1][2] It is the type species of the new genus Nakalipithecus. This ape was described from a fossil jawbone and eleven isolated teeth excavated in 2007 by a team of Japanese and Kenyan researchers in mud flow deposits in the Nakali region of northern Kenya's Rift Valley Province,[1][2] giving the genus its scientific name which means "Nakali ape". Fossil remains of several other primate species were also present at the dig site.[3]

The evolutionary importance of Nakalipithecus is twofold: first, together with Ouranopithecus it provides evidence that the Homininae lineages of today diverged no earlier than some 8 million years ago. Second, it supports the theory that the closest relatives of humans evolved in Africa. The competing view—that modern-type Great Apes went extinct in Africa and that the Homininae were originally an Asian lineage which only later recolonized Africa—is hard to reconcile with the early Late Miocene presence of a basal hominine in Africa.[4]

---

So Nakalipithecus is considered too old to be the common ancestor with chimps, while it is in the proper spacial-temporal location to be ancestral to the common ancestor.

Based on this evidence, my money is on Sahelanthropus tchadensis (or something very similar) being the common ancestor for chimps and humans.

This fits the spacial-temporal matrix and the dog variation parameter for rational and logical conclusions, however the conclusion remains tentative, as new information/evidence can change things.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

How many times do I have to tell you desperate evolutionists, inbreeding of dogs is not evolution nor proof of evolution. Its such a lie, either you are so desperate for some kind of proof, that you post and repost this lie. Either you do it intentionally for deceit or unintentionally because you dont know genetics or science. Either way its a lie. All dogs are still dogs, they are still the same KIND, and no system changes. Color size, inbreed qualities, and inbreed defiencies and weaknesses remain within the breed. Breeds are still dogs, manipulated in breed dogs by humans, is not a proof of evolution. How stupid to post such a diagram.... how desperate. INBREEDING is not evolution.... color change is not evolution,

Says the person whining about not being treated with respect.

Curiously all the dog variation is used for, is an example of how much variation is possible within a species, so this rant is complaining about a non-existent part of my argument. Furthermore calling things like this "lies" without substantiating the claim with objective empirical evidence is just indulging in rabid opinion. Sadly opinion has been shown to have an extremely poor record at affecting reality in any way.

What all those dog variations show is the power of selection for traits, and how much selection controls what results.

There are no flow charts in evolution, no transition species, its all a con....

Denial is not an argument, it's just evidence of a person's failure to cope with reality, whether due to cognitive dissonance or willful ignorance or just plain pretentious lying.

Sadly, for you, every fossil is a transitional fossil -- the transition from the breeding population that precedes it to the population that follows. Just like you are a transitional individual between your parents and your offspring.

Look again at the diagram, look at their desperation in trying to find some evidence for their theory. Ridiculous and a total con and LIE.

Again, what the diagram in question shows is the age for the fossils, it is not intended as anything else:

quote:

---

What we can see however is this timeline for the fossils found to date:

---

These ages are facts, the fossils are facts, their locations in Africa are also facts. These facts paint a picture within the spacial-temporal matrix that is the natural history of life on earth, a picture that is explained by the theory of evolution, and as such they are tests for the theory.

... not a proof of evolution.

No theories are proven, in any field of science. At best they are validated through passing tests, at worst they are invalidated by failing tests. The Theory of Evolution has not yet been invalidated in over 150 years of testing, and it has passed massive numbers of validation tests with flying colors.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

You've posted exactly the same thing on four threads (so far anyway), which is spamming and a troll trait.

Which thread do you want the answer on:

This one (The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans Message 8)
or
A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 127
or
Evolution is a racist doctrine Message 347
or
Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' Message 228

or do you want me to pick?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy

Update - See A good summary of so called human evolution. Message 131 for reply

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : abe

Edited by RAZD, : update

actually 4 threads, see Message 228
make that 5 threads, Message 109

Edited by RAZD, : .

Please prove that dog breeds is a proof of evolution. Please show which breed is not a dog ..

Which nobody said ...

inbreeding does not make cats out of dogs, and dogs remain dogs as in the deceptive diagram that started this thread.

Which nobody said otherwise ...

All the breeds of dogs depicted in the artists work, are still dogs. They have not evolved into a new species or KIND. They are inbreed dogs who their handlers have selected to inbreed with one another so that certain qualities can come out, but they remain dogs... just a new breed....a weakened breed but a new breed.

Which nobody said otherwise ...

Come on face it, be real scientists, be honest..... inbreeding is not a proof of evolution.

Which nobody said ...

Inbreeding is not a sign of evolution and not a proof of evolution.

And curiously, nobody said it was.

You are debating something you made up, not what anyone actually said. Like Don Quixote jousting with windmills, while everyone laughs.

Sad

Razz, just delete your dog graphics and change your wording so as not to deceive READERS who would think that dog inbreeding is a proof of evolution.

Except that nobody that actually reads what is said about them is deceived. It seems only you have a problem understanding what the graphic is used for -- the extent of variability possible via selection within a species.

You cant magically mystically make such an outrageous claim using inbreeding as your basis. Thats unscientific and bogus. Prove it...

Not inbreeding but artificial selection, picking traits to preserve, and cross-breeding to develop new mixtures of existing traits. That inbreeding occurs in order to maintain stasis in a "purebred" population is not an issue for what selection can accomplish because we can see what it has accomplished: the evidence is right there in plain sight.

The same can be said for all the breeds of cows, sheep, horses, pigs, cats, etc etc etc.

All the dogs remain dogs, and yet you claim that humans came from apes, and then according to your dog analogy, means that apes and us are the same.

Not the 'same' (not identical) per se, but not much more different than breeds of dogs differ: can you point to a difference between chimps and humans that is not like a difference between breeds?

We ARE apes and we, and all other apes, ARE primates,. Even Linnaeus classified humans as primates.

So it remains ...

Ridiculous and DESPERATE...

... to ignore the evidence. Denial of reality is delusion.

Enjoy

Notice how Razz uses the word 'possible', as all things are possible via luck and chance and inbreeding says Razz....

Yes when you throw a single di ... according to Davidjay anway ... you can get any number you want ... because "all things are possible via luck and chance" ...

... man made selection to bring out strengths and weaknesses within a species. ... different dog breeds are still dogs, ...

Which is actually the point of my argument -- that they show extensive variation but are still Canis familiaris (that means dogs, Davidjay, specifically domesticated dogs).

Just as all the varieties of domesticated cows are still Bos taurus ... and all the varieties of domesticated sheep are still Ovis aries ... (including the black ones).

This amount of variation shows what is possible within a species when selection within reproductively isolated populations causes different traits to survive and reproduce.

Put another way these variation in domesticated breeds shows there is no barrier to these traits and changes occurring: they have been observed and documented.

So when we see a fossil record such as for Pelycodus:

quote:

---

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

---

We can see that the changes in body size between layers is well within the parameters of body size variation in dogs, and thus well within the known limits of size change for a species.

We can see that there is a trend to larger and larger body size, until at Pelycodus jarrovii all the individuals in the breeding population are larger than all the individuals in the Pelycodus ralstoni breeding population, even though at each stage the changes in body size between layers is well within the parameters of body size variation in dogs, and thus well within the known limits of size change for a species.

They are also still Pelycodus ... then at the top we see a divide, where one breeding population selects for smaller size while the other continues to select for larger size ... and yet that size variation in each population is still within the parameters of body size variation in dogs, and thus well within the known limits of size change for a species.

Thus we can see in the fossil record that mutation and natural selection accomplish the same (or less) variation than seen with domesticated animals.

We can also look an human ancestry in the fossil record the same way, as seen in Message 1:

quote:

---

Now let's add a composite Australopithicus, based mostly on Lucy, but with parts added from other fossils, such as skull and feet (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Let's put Ardi in a line-up with Humans, Australopithicus and Chimps (note skeletons not scaled the same):

Is the variation in traits seen in the bones between modern humans and Ardi more or less than the variation seen in dogs?

Inquiring minds want to know.

If the variation between species seen in the fossil record is less than that seen in dogs, then it is logical and reasonable that the younger species can have evolved from the older species, especially if found in close proximity within the spacial-temporal matrix.

---

The evident answer for those inquiring minds, is that yes, we see less variation between Ardipiticus ramidus and modern man (Homo sapiens) than we see withing the dog species. The outlier, the one showing the most variation, in the pictures, is actually the Gorilla, with the crest on the skull and the extended neck vertebrae.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : link

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

Using the excuse of variation or variety within a species or biblical KIND is not proof of evolution. It is a cop out and a desperate ploy to try and show evidence where no evidence exists.

Dogs show the range of variety possible within a species, and using it as such is not intended as "proof" of evolution -- the process of evolution has been observed and documented, it is fact, "proof" is not needed.

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis

Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Thus the many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies.

Only those desperately denying these facts argue about them.

Going from genetic recombination variety as dictated and approved by, by the Lord of Creation is NOT EVOLUTION. Inbreeding is not evolution, its a horrible desperate leap from genetic combinations to evolutionary newness and diversity of life and branching.

See absence of reference to inbreeding in the definition above. See absence of any need for approval in the definition above. Repeat after me: the processes of evolution are observed, documented, known facts, and denial of this only leads to delusion.

And as has been proven, branching dictates that evolution is a racist doctrine.

Stop lying about this Davidjay: you have not done anything close to "proving" that evolution is racist. Repeating assertions to that effect are not proof nor substantiation of you claim. You have a whole thread dedicated to this delusion of yours, and yet even there you fail to address the criticisms of your assertion that show it is a falsehood. Intentionally repeating a falsehood is lying.

Dogs are not proof that cats came into existence. Dogs create dogs, all sorts of dogs. Genetics 101..... or common sense.

Actually that is evolution 101 and rational use of objective empirical facts. This too has been covered. Division of a parent breeding population into two independent daughter populations creates a clade, evolution results in a hierarchy of nested clades, each clade includes the founding population and all descendants of the founding population. Thus dogs will always be dogs, cats will always be cats.

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.

Note how neither daughter population is considered de factobetter or worse than the other or the parent population, just different. Being different is not racist.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..

So as mentioned inbreeding is not proof of evolution and dogs remain dogs, and dont turn into a new species or KIND. Unless and wait for it, some brave evolutionist comes foreward and answers the question .. Does evolution teach that one species or KIND turns into another species or KIND ?

NOBODY has claimed that inbreeding is proof of evolution, stop lying.

As soon as you define "kind" and show that it accurately represents the diversity of life we see, this question can be investigated.

Are you saying that "kind" is "species" and not "genus" or "family"?

Then you lose, because evolution shows actual evidence of one species changing over time until the individuals are all different from the older individuals (anagenesis) and it shows one becoming two species (cladogenesis) -- both are shown in abundant detail in the Pelycodus diagram that coyote re-posted. That this happened is FACT.

Enjoy

Your first post and original post and GRAPHICS depicts a wolf becoming different dog breeds and then you suggesting that this variation is proof that evolution can jump the gap into new KINDS.

Nope. Try again, this time with understanding of what is actually written.

Not just a variation of dogs but a new KIND or new species.

Nope. Try again, this time with understanding of what is actually written.

So Yes you are free to remove your original graphics that suggest and you later suggest proves evolution.

Nope. Try again, this time with understanding of what is actually written.

No problem simply remove the graphics and edit out your jumping gap proof.

Except that the only problem is your misunderstanding (or your intentional misrepresentation).

And then you might also consider choosing another occupation that designer, when you always seem to be against design, and the DESIGNER.

Attempts at ad hominum attacks only show the person making them has a weak argument that is not supported by facts and so chooses to attack the messenger instead of the message. Sad and pathetic.

No I am not lying, its your graph, and your words, and your principles of jumping the gap. But if you choose you can state that INBREEDING IS NOT EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE

Says the person intentionally continuing to misrepresent what was actually written.

By the way, you might be interested (probably not) in something called the founder effect:

quote:

---

In population genetics, the founder effect is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. It was first fully outlined by Ernst Mayr in 1942,[1] using existing theoretical work by those such as Sewall Wright.[2] As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genotypically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.

Simple illustration of founder effect: The original population is on the left with three possible founder populations on the right.

In the figure shown, the original population has nearly equal numbers of blue and red individuals. The three smaller founder populations show that one or the other color may predominate (founder effect), due to random sampling of the original population. A population bottleneck may also cause a founder effect, though it is not strictly a new population.

The founder effect occurs when a small group of migrants that is not genetically representative of the population from which they came establish in a new area.[3][4] In addition to founder effects, the new population is often a very small population, so shows increased sensitivity to genetic drift, an increase in inbreeding, and relatively low genetic variation. This can be observed in the limited gene pools of Icelanders, Parsis, Ashkenazi Jews, Faroe Islanders, Easter Islanders, and those native to Pitcairn Island. Another example is the remarkably high deaf population of Martha's Vineyard, which resulted in the development of Martha's Vineyard Sign Language.

---

And it can be readily observed in island populations of species ... such as the species on the Galapagos Islands ...

Curiously I always enjoy taking the opportunity of creationist ignorance and desperate denial to educate them (or at least those who read the posts that are willing to learn) and to help them understand (if they want to) the evolutionary mechanisms.

What we have with dog breeds is not inbreeding per se (some cross-breeding is done to alleviate effects of inbreeding or to develop new breeds), but an artificial selection similar to what occurs naturally with founder effect populations and which does result in evolutionary change in the population.

btw -- you seem to equate evolutionary change with speciation, whether through misunderstanding or intentionally (hyperbole exaggeration logical fallacy), when speciation is actually a rather rare occurrence in the general generation to generation changes of the breeding populations. See anagenesis -- all species undergo anagenesis (it is observed, documented, fact) ... even when cladogenesis occurs each daughter population is undergoing anagenesis.

No I am not lying, its your graph, and your words, and your principles of jumping the gap. But if you choose you can state that INBREEDING IS NOT EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE

You are either lying or incapable of understanding ... for one of several reasons: see Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works

3, 4 or 5 ... take your pick.

Enjoy

RAZD, I would say this question might be unwittingly incorrect. You seem to be asking if the anatomy of the skeleton, comparative anatomy between skeletons of primates like chimps and humans have more or less variation than, "seen in dogs". To remain logically correct you must ask, "than seen in dog skeletons".

The purpose of the dogs is to show the variation in phenotypes that can be derived through selection, whether artificial or natural. Natural selection would not (normally) develop all the phenotypes shown by dogs, but logically could have produced any one of them over time. Thus dogs (or cats or cows or sheep or any other domestic breed) give us an idea of the limits of variation within a species while still remaining a species (able to interbreed if given the opportunity).

This "limitation boundary" then applies to all aspects of the phenotype ... but when you are applying that metric to a set of skeletons, then yes you should only look at the skeletons of the dogs. I consider that implicit in the argument.

As for the diagram of, "Ardi" those statements about what Ardi could do, you full well know require an anatomist expert in that field to carefully delineate each and every subtle difference and if the skeleton is not complete and part of the evidence could change those conclusions, then this could affect the validity of the argument.

Curiously those statements were done by "an anatomist expert in that field" ...

Enjoy

... does ... inbreeding creat a new species ?

Not by itself.

If so, then it confirms that inbreeding human populations can creat a new species of humans that is not human ...

Even if so it would not create a new species of humans that is not human.

... but a new KInd ? ...

Define "KInd" and then we can discuss this issue.

... This confirming that evolution is a racist doctrine.

A rather silly and easily falsified claim that you have not demonstrated on your thread for that purpose, nor defended it against the various examples that show otherwise. Repeating a claim that has been shown to be false is intentionally repeating a falsehood. That is lying. Stop lying Davidjay.

Only you are seeing this -- or pretending to.

If you deny inbreeding creates a new species, ...

Not by itself.

... then remove that silly false dog chart that suggests inbred dogs create a new Kind or species.

Except that it shows no such thing. It shows the development of varieties. Any species can (and often does) have a number of varieties, but they are all one species and can still interbreed. In humans we call the various varieties "races" ... and as you know all human races can interbreed. This forms hybrids not new species.

Only you have trouble seeing this -- or pretending to.

And enough stupid excuses that say this definition or your new definition excuses you and your dogs.

Your inability, or refusal, or failure to understand what the dogs actually show, and how this relates to actual evolution is not my problem.

Enjoy

That's a lot of nonsense with nothing of value to reply to. You seem very desperate to nullify the objective empirical evidence and the information it shows. This is typical cognitive dissonance behavior. See Message 1 for more.

Your false beliefs are interfering with your ability to learn, pathetic and sad.

Enjoy

Message 1 of Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs: quote: ... According to Festinger, we engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which he said could be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors. [5] This bias gives the theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and even destructive behavior. ... Lowering the importance of conflicting information is usually done in several ways: attacking the messenger (ad hominem), denial, calling the evidence lies or part of a conspiracy theory, for instance.

Your question have been answered, you just reject the answers because your cognitive dissonance is strong. So you resort to attacking the messengers.

And you keep coming back for more, because you want to be right, and you can't understand why everyone else rejects your opinions and falsified beliefs and assertions.

Enjoy