Thanks for the articles, Occams. You have given me a chance to explain myself as my prior statement was very brief without adequate explanation. Even the Wiki article you gave me show that scientists are not sure where the 'ancestral' lines came from, showing lines on different continents.
This again supports my premise that dogs didn't EVOLVE by natural selection & random gene mutations. Since wolves, dogs & coyotes can interbreed, they come from one kind of animals.
Second, the different lines on different continents, in my understanding as a creationist, demonstrate what happened at the tower of Babel when God confused the one language of those on the earth into many & thus people scattered all over the world. The table of nations from that scattering in Genesis 10 and 11 of the Bible can be used to accurately show the various nations and tribes that we see today & trace them back to that table of nations.
Third, though it can be shown that one line ties in with one line of 'domesticated dogs' coming from the gray wolf, others seem to come from an 'supposed' extinct line ancestors from other wolves, yet there is no fossil record to show this line.
Fourth, this identified musculature can't be verified from ancient animals, since they can't be tested in the laboratory, so there is no known way to conclusively say they had this characteristic; it has been tested only on known species today.
Fifth, this example is not one of natural selection & random genetic mutations because all these varieties of domesticated animals were designed by intelligent design. Mankind has deliberately interbred these animals using man's intelligence & thus we see what we see today for that reason.
Sixth, some domesticated dogs that have been interbred do not have this musculature around the eyes.
Seventh, some of the studies were very limited on species & specimens & this particular one was the one quoted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) & the study was done by FOUR different universities involved. Here is their conclusion & notice the specific words used in their statement:
"Since the muscles were robust in the dogs but not wolves, "that tells us that that muscle & its function are selected," she added."
This supposed conclusive statement came even though a spokesman said:
"the main limitation of the study was the small number of cadavers -- four wild wolves & six domestic dogs..."
So as I have always said, the evidence needs to be scrutinized & often it isn't the problem, the issue is how one interprets it & explains it. So when it says in this study that the function is 'selected' they imply natural selection & random genetic mutation when history clearly shows it was neither but interbreeding through man's intelligent design.
My cousin has a dog in Alaska that is half wolf & half Siberian husky. Wolves have a dominance system that they only make contact with those they consider 'alpha.' Others down the pecking order also do not make eye contact but avert their gaze downward or away. He would look at my cousin & his family with no problem but others he didn't consider 'alpha' he would not have any eye contact but would ignore them.
By the way, Siberian Husky's don't have this identified musculature around the eyes either.
Lastly, though I understand your comment, comparing my statement that dogs didn't 'evolve' in an evolutionary way through NATURAL selection or RANDOM genetic mutations, I explained why it wasn't natural nor random.
And your analogy that this would be like saying the sun didn't rise this morning is an oxymoron. The sun rising through physical constant laws doesn't have anything to do with natural selection nor random genetic mutations biologically nor has it changed like this characteristic in 'domesticated'--by intelligent human design--dogs.'
So thanks again for letting me explain myself in more detail.
