evolution&dogs, book 2

[Key]

Dogs are under extreme selection, not genetic drift. While artificial selection may be more strict than that found in nature it is not different in kind. Humans selecting dogs for their fur color is no different than elk selecting wolves for speed.

No, the nature of the selection is a very different kind. In Artificial Selection, there can be selection based on a positive or sought after trait, as well as removal or even inclusion of negative traits (Your example of English Bull Dogs is a good one for the inclusion of negative traits)

In natural selection, there is only stress against a negative trait.

As such, the means, method and final outcome are vastly different, not just stricter levels of the same affect.

I believe this is something that should be brought to your attention regarding this, as it is a very important part of the aspect of "evolution" and it's plausibility.

Separate species are two POPULATIONS that do not interbreed. Infertility between two individuals may not indicate speciation of the larger group.

I used the word Life Forms, IE: Plural, not necessarily Populations, because the affect is both, individual and group whole. If individuals will, can, and do, breed with each other, and produce viable offspring, then it is not truly a different species, but a breed.

After all, Populations are just groups of individuals.

Size. Some dog breeds are physically incompatible.

Addressed already.

An even stranger situation is english bulldogs. They have been bred for such large heads and narrow hips that some pups can not be birthed naturally. They must be extracted by caesarian. This breed is extremely dependent on humans for their survival.

A prime example of ID .. gone wrong.. but still ID, I might even argue the level of intelligence of the designer, but, I could not decry that there is some level of intelligence there. After all, a designer does not mean the design will not be the best or without flaws, look at the Ford Pinto for a good example of that.

We can't argue that it was designed, we just know it was not a very good design.

God Bless

Key

 

[Steezie]

Key, you are demonstrating ZERO knowleage of...well...just about anything in your arguments. How do you expect people here to take you seriously

 

[TheBear]

Size. Some dog breeds are physically incompatible.

But they can be successfully interbred using artificial insemination.

I thought all domestic dogs are the same subspecies of wolves.

 

[Key]

Now how do I respond to this, with only one sentence?

Key, you are demonstrating ZERO knowleage of...well...just about anything in your arguments. How do you expect people here to take you seriously

Thank you for the commentary, have a nice day.

God Bless

Key

 

[Steezie]

Now how do I respond to this, with only one sentence?



Thank you for the commentary, have a nice day.

God Bless

Key

I rest my case

 

[Key]

But they can be successfully interbred using artificial insemination.

I thought all domestic dogs are the same subspecies of wolves.

It's been moved around a bit recently.

It is Canis Lupus Domestics for Domesticated Dogs
and Canis Lupus Lupus for Wolves.

God Bless

Key

 

[Key]

I rest my case

Would you like fries with that?

God Bless

Key

 

[dud1]

Genetics say that dogs descended from wolves around 140,000 years ago. I can't see wolves wandering in to camp for food if hungry as they would instead just attack any humans they found on their own. More likely they were deliberately domesticated from puppies as hunt animals as hawks were in the Middle East?

 

[sfs]

No, the nature of the selection is a very different kind. In Artificial Selection, there can be selection based on a positive or sought after trait, as well as removal or even inclusion of negative traits (Your example of English Bull Dogs is a good one for the inclusion of negative traits)

In natural selection, there is only stress against a negative trait.

No, that's not correct. In natural selection, there can be selection for new beneficial traits as well as against deleterious traits, and beneficial traits sometimes carry with them negative traits as well. There is a vast literature on both positive and negative natural selection.

Examples of positive selection in humans include selection for lactose tolerance in European adults and selection for the sickle cell mutation in parts of Africa, with the latter also producing the negative trait of sickle cell disease.

 

[Pesto]

Key, since you repeatedly ignored requests in the other dog thread, I'll ask again here.

Please define evolution.

Don't give me a link. I want the text in your post.

 

[RedAndy]

Key, since you repeatedly ignored requests in the other dog thread, I'll ask again here.

Please define evolution.

Don't give me a link. I want the text in your post.

Seconded.

 

[Steezie]

Seconded.

Third

 

[Split Rock]

The point should be that the 800 breeds of dogs don't have anything to do with evolution. Domestic animals are bred and not permitted to evolve - just as people are now self-breeding and no longer evolve.

Technically you are correct; artificial selection is not a mechanism of evolution. However, it does give us incite into the capabilities of natural selection. In other words, it shows us what selection can do with the type of genetic variation that species have.

Yes, we all know that Species are what ever we decide to call it as the flavor of the month.

Not really.. the problem lays in identifying populations that are genetically isolated from each other.

Yes, Dogs are not Evolution, but simple Genetic Drift, and the affects of the Designer in the Scheme of things.

This is completely wrong. Genetic Drift is defined as random change in gene frequency in the absence of selection.

Now you call can attack me as well, and tell me how much I don't know about evolution, and maybe I might even here a few bits like "I need to be guided by the Genetic Spirits to fully grasp the Theory".. or some such.

You certainly do not understand genetic drift. I guess me pointing that out means that I am "persecuting you for being a Christian."

So, Separate Species are life forms that do not breed with each other, by affect of several means, boundaries, desire, inability, to name the major ones.

I would say separate populations, but OK.

So, which of these are affecting Dogs? Care to enlighten me?

Dogs are bred by people. If you want to see evolution at work, look at mutts.

 

[Pesto]

Technically you are correct; artificial selection is not a mechanism of evolution.

Excuse me?

 

[Key]

Key, since you repeatedly ignored requests in the other dog thread, I'll ask again here.

Please define evolution.

Don't give me a link. I want the text in your post.

Seconded.

Third

Are you all incapable of reading a link?

God Bless

Key

 

[RedAndy]

Are you all incapable of reading a link?

No, but it's easy to post a link. What is harder is to demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic at hand - something that your rants about "evolution" vs. "adaptation" have failed to do.

What we ask of you is to actually tell us what evolution means, to show that you know what you're talking about. At the moment it's a lot of Creationist gum-flappery, but little in the way of substance.

 

[Key]

This is completely wrong. Genetic Drift is defined as random change in gene frequency in the absence of selection.

In the Absence of Selection, then yes, you would be correct, however, we are not dealing with an situation that has an absence of selection. We are in reality discussing a directed and very active selective force being placed upon these animals.

But thank you for that bit of information, it is appreciated to see you giving my responses thought and consideration.

I hope I have cleared up this issue for you as well.

God Bless

Key

 

[Split Rock]

Technically you are correct; artificial selection is not a mechanism of evolution. However, it does give us incite into the capabilities of natural selection. In other words, it shows us what selection can do with the type of genetic variation that species have.

Excuse me?

OK... you are excused??

There are three general mechanisms of evolution:

1. Natural Selection
2. Genetic Drift
3. Gene Flow.

Some people list sexual selection as a mechanism, but I see that as a type of Natural Selection.

 

[Key]

No, but it's easy to post a link. What is harder is to demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic at hand - something that your rants about "evolution" vs. "adaptation" have failed to do.

Allow me to explain, This is Adaptation,

Now, you will notice that it slightly different then the way it is Explained in the Link for Evolution.

And you will also notice that not all Evolutionary Changes are Adaptations. as such, they are in fact, different things. Yes, Adaptation plays heavy on Evolution, but the reverse does not happen.

What we ask of you is to actually tell us what evolution means, to show that you know what you're talking about. At the moment it's a lot of Creationist gum-flappery, but little in the way of substance.

Oh good, shall you next be saying that I have to be "in the Spirit" to grasp it?

I have a better idea, why don't you show me, that you know what you are talking about, as it stands you seem to possess very little knowledge of this subject, as you seem to become easily confused regrading it.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Pesto]

Are you all incapable of reading a link?

God Bless

Key

No, but posting a link does not demonstrate understanding of the material. Otherwise I could claim to be well versed in

* Ornithology
* the Reformation
* Hindu
* or, anime

I want you to demonstrate your understanding of evolution. You can start by posting the definition in the text of your post.

I believe this is the fourth or fifth time I've had to ask.