Thouroughly, which is why I am two steps ahead.
So if the investigator believes the fire was accidental, then during research, finds an accelerant, he revised his beliefs, yes? Or does if he’s worth listening to.
Indeed. So then, do you retract your claim that we can't use evidence of the present to determine events that happened in the past?
Or did you forget that that was the point of the fire analogy?
So when Darwin classified finches based on the belief they were reproductively isolated, and then during research we find out they never were, why does no one then revise their beliefs?
So far I, have only your assertion about this. And from past experience, I know that it's generally a bad idea to just accept your baseless assertions at face value.
So this is the point where you support this claim of yours with actual data and evidence.
In every post dogs are mentioned.
Then why are you asking if wolves evolved into dogs the past couple thousand years?
Since you accept they did...
Yet no natural disaster has forced wolves of differing breeds together, forcing internal change through interbreeding. They are not actively selecting for traits. Any changes that occurr will take hundreds of thousands of years if not millions, unless some natural event occurs to force them to select for a specific trait. Such as thinner fur if forced to warmer climates due to a natural disaster rendering their habitat inhabitable.
The amount of misconceptions in this post his disturbing, especially considering that you feel qualified to talk about these subjects.
In reality, no "natural disasters" are required for selection pressures to change.
Selection pressures change whenever the overall environment, the habitat, changes.
These changes can be subtle or they can be rather big. The bigger they are, by the way, the more chances of actually going extinct. Very sudden big changes can potentially upset eco-systems to such a degree that species don't have enough time to properly adapt to the new reality.
The current consensus is that the evolution of dogs goes hand in hand with the rise of humans. Human populations migrating tend to have quite some impact on the habitat they leave behind as well as the habitat they move into.
Yes, but over a longer period of time
DNA and fossil evidence suggests that it happened during the past several 10 thousand years.
What is your beef with that?
, which then evolutionists see these changes in form and from their pre-conceived starting point assume separate species. Dogs are simply an accelerated process caused by man.
The breeds of dogs, sure. They are breed in artificial selection programs.
How about the original dogs, that evolved from wolves?
All animals are territorial, including man. Famine in one area forces animals that would not necessarily come into contact to do so. It doesn’t have to be famine, it can be a volcanic eruption, drought, floods, etc.
Or just migration, a change in diet, the slow and steady formation of a river, climate patterns, increased solar activity,.......
We find ourselves in an ever-changing environment, which in turn plays a big role in selection pressures. Change doesn't need to be dramatic.
Natural selection is itself incapable of doing anything until it causes groups not normally close to interbreed.
Like the wolves that produced dogs?
Ow, wait.....
So for obvious reasons natural selection makes changes develop much slower. I might add.
No. Natural selection, would be the natural rate. Not the "slower" rate - whatever that means.
It's artificial selection that makes it speed up, in function of the trait that is being artificially selected. It's because there, you can change the selection parameters at will and literally create new ones. In nature, it doesn't quite happen that way. It can go quick, it can go slow. There's nobody arbitrarily deciding what comes next.
So if left to natural causes those changes we caused on wolves will take much, much longer.
How did "we" cause changes on wolves?
And in the end will still be of the same species.
I'm pretty sure that dogs and wolves aren't the same species............
Yes, we learned interbreeding is 2 to 3 magnitudes more important than mutations.
Kind of like how wolves interbreed with...... wolves, to produce dogs?
The versions are the same, change over time.
So.... there are more then 200.000 scientific papers dealing with biological evolution. Do you think that "change over time" is the only thing they state?
I'm pretty sure that these papers go into a bit more detail.
The incorrect theory to begin with
Except, apparantly, when it comes to the origins of dogs and how they evolved from interbreeding wolves.
makes you see Speciation where it doesn’t exist.
But you agree that dogs, a species, evolved from wolves, another species?
You think those slow changes over time mean new species, but we go back to wolves and understand through accelerated processes, they are not.
So dogs didn't evolve from wolves?
You really need to start making up your mind.
And such is why dogs common ancestors can be found, but no common ancestor where assumed splits occurred can be.
What? No idea what you are saying here....
It seems like you don't know yourself what it is exactly that you accept concerning the origin of dogs.
And yet relativity reduces to Newtonian physics
It doesn't. Which is why it took an Einstein to come up with it and why Newton failed where Einstein succeeded.
And neither one can explain anything beyond the solar system without adding 96% ad-hoc theory to a theory 99% correct in the solar system without those ad-hoc theories.
Ow dear, not that again.......................................
Basically throwing in common ancestors that can’t be found....
Uhu, uhu.
I forgot how intellectually dishonest you were, I guess.
Bye.