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.
To answer these questions lets do a little comparative anatomy:
Red FoxRed fox - WikipediaKingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Vulpes
Species: V. vulpes
House CatCat - WikipediaKingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. silvestris
Subspecies: F. s. catus
Where the standard for comparison of features is the variations within the dog varieties that have been bred by humans over the last several thousands of years
DogDog - WikipediaDomain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris
The question will be whether the difference in the traits between the cat and the red fox is MORE or LESS than the maximum differences within varieties of dogs. We'll call this factor delta/Dog with these categories:
+3 = much more difference between cat and fox than between dog and dog
+2 = more difference between cat and fox than between dog and dog
+1 = a little more difference between cat and fox than between dog and dog
0 = no difference between cat and fox than between dog and dog
-1 = a little less difference between cat and fox than between dog and dog
-2 = less difference between cat and fox than between dog and dog
-3 = much less difference between cat and fox than between dog and dog
Trait House Cat Red Fox delta/Dog
Nose small small -2
Whiskers long long -2
Tooth size small small -3
Tooth type carnassial pair canine +1
Tongue keratin hooks standard +2
food carnivorous carnivorous -3
Snout small/short small/long -3
Eyes 2 2 0
Eye pupils slitted slitted 0
Eye color several gold/yellow 0
Ears 2 2 0
Ear shape Pointed Pointed -3
Ear size small small -3
Ear control good good -3
Head size small small -3
Neck short short -3
body size small small -3
legs 4 4 0
leg/body length short short -3
paws 4 4 0
claws 5x4 5x4 0
Claws retractable not +3
Tail long long -3
Fur short to long long -2
Fur type straight straight -3
....
(subtotal) -36
(average so far) -1.44
Those are most of the visible differences. Feel free to add to the list with whatever comes to mind. In a lot of the -3 cases the needle is pegged at much much less difference between cat and fox than within varieties of dog.
When we compare the skeletons, we can match bone for bone from cat to fox to dog, but we see much more variation in size and proportions within the dog population than between cat and fox. There are no bones that are special to cats or foxes or dogs. This can be counted as a -3 x number of bones.
For additional comparisons see:
Cat skeletonRed Fox skeletonDog skeleton
When we compare internal organs, we can match organ for organ from cat to fox to dog, but we see much more variation in size and proportions within the dog population than between cat and fox. There are no organs that are special to cats or foxes or dogs. This can be counted as a -3 x number of organs.
Conclusion: from feature to feature to feature, a cat is more similar to a red fox than some dogs are like other dogs.
The dog is in the species
C. lupusThe dog is in the genus Canis
The fox is in the species
V. vulpesThe fox is in the genus Vulpes
The taxon level where dogs and foxes are related is in the Canidae family
The cat is in the species
F. silvestrisThe cat is in the genus Felis
The domestic cat is in the Felidae family
The taxon level where cats and foxes are related is in the Order Carnivora
By biological evolution standards this means that there is greater macroevolutionary 'distance' between cats and foxes than between foxes and dogs and much more macroevolutionary 'distance between cats and foxes than there is within the dog species
Conclusion: "large scale change" is
not a measure of macroevolution ... as used by evolutionary biologists.
Back to the original 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? "
Beretta,
Message 7
So what would you like this to become?
Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?
So the questions that creationists must answer are:
(1) If your definition of macroevolution is different from evolutionary biology what is it?
(2) Why do you think it is a valid definition?
(3) How much change is necessary?
(4) Why isn't the difference between cat and fox a valid criteria?
We'll start with those - and see what turns up.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : changed dog/dog to dog/wolf for clarity
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.