Observable evolution today.

[searchingforanswers1]

It is easy to see basic evolution at work. Farmers use selective breeding to change the look and body of animals every day.

http://www.crazyforcows.com/fow/fow28.shtml
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/LL/atl2.html

Fencing made possible controlled breeding, and with the end of free grass it was economically advisable to raise cattle that developed faster than longhorns. By this time ranchers had begun crossing longhorns with shorthorn Durhams and later with Herefords,[size=-1]qv[/size] thus producing excellent beef animals. Longhorns were bred almost out of existence; by the 1920s only a few small herds remained.

 

[Blackmarch]

It is easy to see basic evolution at work. Farmers use selective breeding to change the look and body of animals every day.

http://www.crazyforcows.com/fow/fow28.shtml
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/LL/atl2.html

Fencing made possible controlled breeding, and with the end of free grass it was economically advisable to raise cattle that developed faster than longhorns. By this time ranchers had begun crossing longhorns with shorthorn Durhams and later with Herefords,[size=-1]qv[/size] thus producing excellent beef animals. Longhorns were bred almost out of existence; by the 1920s only a few small herds remained.

Yup
Now take the ranchers out, throw in more chance and time; evolution.
Still doesn't prove whether there is or isn't a God

 

[searchingforanswers1]

Another example.

http://www.rebelcreek.com/GoldenRetrieverHistory.html

Golden Retrievers were "developed" in Britain during the 1800's. Believed to be included in the formation of the Golden Retriever breed are the now extinct Tweed Water Spaniel, the Newfoundland, the Irish Setter and a variety of water spaniels. Lord Tweedmouth takes credit for the development of the Golden Retriever. On his estate, near Inverness, Scotland, Lord Tweedmouth wished to develop a dog which was loyal and kind, yet spirited and energetic, with a love for the water and an ability to retrieve. His early vision of a Golden Retriever was for a dog that would have great enthusiasm for retrieving waterfowl.

 

[mannysee]

Re your quote, "Farmers use selective breeding......". Now if that is a form of evolution i.e. nature/chance doing the work (and not a farmer with intelligence) then you've got me! Please try again.

 

[searchingforanswers1]

Re your quote, "Farmers use selective breeding......". Now if that is a form of evolution i.e. nature/chance doing the work (and not a farmer with intelligence) then you've got me! Please try again.

Farmers\breeders just speed up the process.

 

[JohnR7]

It is easy to see basic evolution at work. Farmers use selective breeding to change the look and body of animals every day.

Do you think Darwin knew about animal husbandry?

 

[searchingforanswers1]

Yup
Now take the ranchers out, throw in more chance and time; evolution.
Still doesn't prove whether there is or isn't a God

Im not trying to say there is no God. God could have set up evolution.

 

[Ondoher]

Do you think Darwin knew about animal husbandry?

Yes he did. He addresses this in On The Origin of Species.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Do you think Darwin knew about animal husbandry?

Darwin studied animal husbandry extensively. The first chapters of Origin of Species are an in-depth study of pigeon breeding.

 

[FieryBalrog]

Re your quote, "Farmers use selective breeding......". Now if that is a form of evolution i.e. nature/chance doing the work (and not a farmer with intelligence) then you've got me! Please try again.

the distinction is just artificial. Animal husbandry is the same as evolution, except instead of the environment being "natural" i.e. uncontrolled, the environment is controlled by humans.

 

[searchingforanswers1]

Another example of breeding between species.

http://www.bigcats.org/abc/catspecies/crossbreeding.html
However, in contrast to the lack of recognized wild hybrids, large felids of different species in captivity are known to mate and produce offspring. Under zoo conditions, individuals of one species can become accustomed to members of another species that they would either avoid in the wild or never come into contact with due to differences in range. The best-known hybrids are between lions and tigers, resulting in a 'tiglon' from a male tiger and a lioness, and a 'liger' from a male lion and a tigress.

 

[Blackmarch]

Do you think Darwin knew about animal husbandry?

Very likely, selective breeding isn't a recent development..
The question this one poses on evolution; is it purely by chance?

 

[Blackmarch]

Another example of breeding between species.

http://www.bigcats.org/abc/catspecies/crossbreeding.html
However, in contrast to the lack of recognized wild hybrids, large felids of different species in captivity are known to mate and produce offspring. Under zoo conditions, individuals of one species can become accustomed to members of another species that they would either avoid in the wild or never come into contact with due to differences in range. The best-known hybrids are between lions and tigers, resulting in a 'tiglon' from a male tiger and a lioness, and a 'liger' from a male lion and a tigress.

But are the Offspring sterile or not?

Probably the best known hybrid that would occur more often without human intervention would be Mules, offspring from a Donkey and a horse.

 

[searchingforanswers1]

But are the Offspring sterile or not?

Sometimes they are sterile. Like the mule. So far it cant easily reproduce. Note the words "almost always sterile"

http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/mule.html
Offspring from either cross, although fully developed as males or females, are almost always sterile. Hence, a line of horses and a line of domestic asses must be maintained to perpetuate mule or hinny production.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you think Darwin knew about animal husbandry?

this really bugs me.
how can you be involved in the Creation-evolution-design discussion and not have a reasonable idea of what Darwin did?

Origin is online.
you can breeze through it and see what it says.
rather than express such ignorance.

btw. as pointed out above Darwin was an avid pigeon beeder and used them extensively as an example.

 

[Blackmarch]

Sometimes they are sterile. Like the mule. So far it cant easily reproduce. Note the words "almost always sterile"

http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/mule.html
Offspring from either cross, although fully developed as males or females, are almost always sterile. Hence, a line of horses and a line of domestic asses must be maintained to perpetuate mule or hinny production.

True, there is one case where a Mule did breed with a horse and they got a horse offspring.

 

[informedforGod]

It is easy to see basic evolution at work. Farmers use selective breeding to change the look and body of animals every day.

http://www.crazyforcows.com/fow/fow28.shtml
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/LL/atl2.html

Fencing made possible controlled breeding, and with the end of free grass it was economically advisable to raise cattle that developed faster than longhorns. By this time ranchers had begun crossing longhorns with shorthorn Durhams and later with Herefords,[size=-1]qv[/size] thus producing excellent beef animals. Longhorns were bred almost out of existence; by the 1920s only a few small herds remained.

Yes but where do we see any evidence of a cow giving birth to . . . oh maybe a cow dog (an animal which would herd the other cows and then be used for meat at the end of the season). Or anyother macroevolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Very likely, selective breeding isn't a recent development..
The question this one poses on evolution; is it purely by chance?

chance may be the producer of mutations.
but natural selection is not just chance, it is a filter, just like selective breeding is a filter. one under human control for human desires and one under environmental control, adapting creatures for their ecological niches. survival is not random, purely by chance.

 

[Blackmarch]

chance may be the producer of mutations.
but natural selection is not just chance, it is a filter, just like selective breeding is a filter. one under human control for human desires and one under environmental control, adapting creatures for their ecological niches. survival is not random, purely by chance.

Yep it is (it's what I was referring to in my first post on this thread that chance replaced the rancher), my question was intended to be more of a thinker type question, it doesn't really solve the debate, merely bringing the God/no God argument to a tighter circle; (and people don't need to answer this question, unless you want to do a new thread about it) Is pure random chance really pure random chance? or is there a directive force (maybe so small as to not to be readily noticed) active in it (whether It's God, the Force or Nature, etc..).

 

[FieryBalrog]

Yes but where do we see any evidence of a cow giving birth to . . . oh maybe a cow dog (an animal which would herd the other cows and then be used for meat at the end of the season). Or anyother macroevolution.

thats not macroevolution. Thats BS. If that happened evolution would be nicely falsified.

"macro evolution" is a nonsense term anyway. Theres no difference, only an invented difference by creationists because its impossible to deny "microevolution" reasonably anymore. But whats macroevolution? We'll never know, although I do think its "whatever can't happen" like this above BS example.