Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

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.TTFN,WK

So you are using the massive assumption that these genes are 'likely' to be similar, with no apparent substantiation, to deny common ancestry? You don't think that is the sort of assertion that might merit evidence to support it? Do you mean the specific genetic basis of the novel traits? In that case the assumption is even larger.The idea that similar phenotypic traits do not imply common ancestry is clearly established, which is why convergent morphological evolution is recognised. But what evidence is there that there is an indistinguishable genetic basis? I can readily believed that the same genes or pathways may be involved but I doubt that the same mutations are.It seems eminently possible that selection for tameness could be effectively select for a reduced level of something like testosterone which could affect behaviour, fertility and hair development. But there are many possible mutations that could produce such a reduction either in the many proteins involve in the testosterone biosynthesis pathway, the androgen receptor molecule which mediates testosterone signalling or proteins interacting with the androgen receptor. Would similar effects from disrupting the same developmental pathway, albeit as a side effect of selecting for a behavioural trait, not be the result of common ancestry? labeit at a deeper level, i.e. not the inheritance of the trait from the common ancestor but of the gene regulatory network which leads to the expression of a cluster of similar traits when it is disrupted in a similar way.Fodor seems to be arguing against a strawman ultra-adaptationist form of Darwinian theory, in which every trait must be adaptive, that you would be hard pressed to find anyone subscribing to.TTFN,WK

Yes, you can. In the case of programs this was demonstrated in the Lenski et al. paper in Nature (1999).TTFN,WK

We can't prove they are precursors because they are fossils, this is certainly true. So in the absence of a time machine neither the fossil record alone proves neither the idea of the gradual evolution nor of the sudden de novo appearance of created kinds.We do however have considerable evidence for morphological change coming about as a result of genetic mutation and none to suggest there are any identifiable limits to what this can encompass. We also have no evidence suggesting that new 'kinds' of life suddenly appear de novo.Your standard of proof seems useless as a scientific concept.TTFN,WK

So what are the similarities between a retrovirus, a human and a chimpanzee that mean they show such highly similar recipes in so many instances?TTFN,WK

Do you think there is enough morphological data for you to do a comparison between Hyracotherium and modern equids the way you did between the housecat and red fox?I have to say that my main problem with your approach is its heavy reliance on morphology over genetics. What you really seem to be arguing is that given time we could evolve one species to look like the other while staying within the boundaries of morphological variation seen between dogs and wolves.TTFN,WK

Yes, it is. how do you think that phototaxis is mediated? It is through proteins produced from genes. There are a number of identified mutants, in both cyanobacteria and plants, which affect phototaxis. These can occur in photoreceptive proteins, morphogenetic growth factors, and signal transduction factors.How do you think plants react to light?TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.