Creationist have come up with this argument; dogs only makes dogs. And if dogs only makes dogs then the theory of evolution must be false. The logic in this argument is flawless, except for one things:
It assume there exists a dog of kind A and a dog of kind B and that kind A can give birth to kind B and v.s. However we know A kinds only make more A kinds and B kinds only make more B kinds, therefore neither A or B are dogs. In fact according to the creationist dog-argument there cannot exists such things as dogs that can make more dogs.
But I am willing to grant creationist the possibility of a hypothetical transitional dog C that can make A-kinds and B-kinds and C-kinds. Even though A kind and B kind not are dogs but only some kind of dog-ish-kind dog kind, C kinds are dogs so C is a dog and that will be fine as evidence for me. But then I also want evidence that this transitional dog C exists before I accept it.
And no it wont help if you name C as a wolf. There is no evidence that a wolf ever made A kinds or B kinds. Wolfs only give birth to wolfs (C-kinds). Therefore wolfs are not a dog kind, but their own kind, the wolf-kind.
and so on and so on until you have billion and trillions of kinds, a new kind for every new individual that ever has and will been born, it never stops.....
The correct way to say it is; a dogs make dogs because dogs are wolfs. Only wolfs that are dogs can make wolfs that are dogs. That means that a dog is not only a wolf to the name but it is actually a wolf that is a dog - literally. A wolf that is a dog, is also a mammal - not only to the name but dogs ARE mammals! Humans ARE also mammals. And because both humans and dogs ARE mammals it follows that humans are related to dogs. But we are mammals that are primates that are apes that are human that only makes mammals that are primates that are apes that are humans. That is why we cant make dogs and that is why dogs only makes dogs.
We say 'dog' and 'humans' when we speak because it would take all day to say "only a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human can make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human and that is why a mammal that is a canine that is wolf that is a dog cannot make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human". So it is then easier to say "dogs cant make humans because dogs are not humans. Dog can only make the same kind - namely dogs". But then a creationist wont understand what it means and start to believe it must be evidence against evolution, while it is not.
These long names are known as the nested hierarchy of life and they can uniquely identify any "kind" of "kind" in a tree-like fashion. The point is, these nested hierarchy, or "trees", are evidence for evolution, and the only way to prove that a dog exist is to accept that the theory of evolution is true (because only then it make sense to talk about dogs that makes dogs). But that was what they tried to refute. Therefore it follows the dog argument cannot disprove the theory of evolution, because the dog argument is a proof in favor of the theory of evolution.
It assume there exists a dog of kind A and a dog of kind B and that kind A can give birth to kind B and v.s. However we know A kinds only make more A kinds and B kinds only make more B kinds, therefore neither A or B are dogs. In fact according to the creationist dog-argument there cannot exists such things as dogs that can make more dogs.
But I am willing to grant creationist the possibility of a hypothetical transitional dog C that can make A-kinds and B-kinds and C-kinds. Even though A kind and B kind not are dogs but only some kind of dog-ish-kind dog kind, C kinds are dogs so C is a dog and that will be fine as evidence for me. But then I also want evidence that this transitional dog C exists before I accept it.
And no it wont help if you name C as a wolf. There is no evidence that a wolf ever made A kinds or B kinds. Wolfs only give birth to wolfs (C-kinds). Therefore wolfs are not a dog kind, but their own kind, the wolf-kind.
and so on and so on until you have billion and trillions of kinds, a new kind for every new individual that ever has and will been born, it never stops.....
The correct way to say it is; a dogs make dogs because dogs are wolfs. Only wolfs that are dogs can make wolfs that are dogs. That means that a dog is not only a wolf to the name but it is actually a wolf that is a dog - literally. A wolf that is a dog, is also a mammal - not only to the name but dogs ARE mammals! Humans ARE also mammals. And because both humans and dogs ARE mammals it follows that humans are related to dogs. But we are mammals that are primates that are apes that are human that only makes mammals that are primates that are apes that are humans. That is why we cant make dogs and that is why dogs only makes dogs.
We say 'dog' and 'humans' when we speak because it would take all day to say "only a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human can make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human and that is why a mammal that is a canine that is wolf that is a dog cannot make a mammal that is primate that is a monkey that is an ape that is a human". So it is then easier to say "dogs cant make humans because dogs are not humans. Dog can only make the same kind - namely dogs". But then a creationist wont understand what it means and start to believe it must be evidence against evolution, while it is not.
These long names are known as the nested hierarchy of life and they can uniquely identify any "kind" of "kind" in a tree-like fashion. The point is, these nested hierarchy, or "trees", are evidence for evolution, and the only way to prove that a dog exist is to accept that the theory of evolution is true (because only then it make sense to talk about dogs that makes dogs). But that was what they tried to refute. Therefore it follows the dog argument cannot disprove the theory of evolution, because the dog argument is a proof in favor of the theory of evolution.