The curious case of dog evolution

[Ukrainia]

The curious case of dog evolution

I am almost convinced of old earth evolution, with God's hand guiding it every step of the way. Many disciplines point to this, and although it's a challenge to fit evolutionary theory with my theology I know of plenty of people who do this just fine.

In any case here's my topic. The difficulty in believing evolution for many people is that evolutionary change just happens so slowly. People are basically the same as they were thousands of years ago. And I think this goes for most living species. It's hard to see how both mouse and man could have the same common ancestor.

Watching a national geographic special on the breeding of dogs, I found this stat really fascinating. The vast majority of dog breeds have been developed over the last 120 years. While all dogs are of the same species, just think of the incredible diversity of dog breeds. From pugs, to mastiffs, to chihuahuas, to greyhounds and hundreds of other breeds have been developed over a really small period of time. Granted this is artificial selection instead of natural selection, but in terms of what is happening at the genetic level their is no difference.

Apparently, mutations due to tandom repeats allows for this amazing diversity which can take place in only a few generations of breeding (I only know what I've heard in this 1 hour TV program so don't ask me for more info). What's even cooler is that the huge amount of tandom repeats that allow for this speed of change are only found in canids (dogs, wolves, foxes, etc...) and are not found in other animals or even other mammels. That means even if someone spent the next 100 years selectively breeding cows, or sheep or cats, the degree of change would be very small relative to the changes we see between dog breeds.

To me this is utterly fascinating, and it would also be interesting to see if any young earth creationist might use this for a theory. I mean if you could theoretically go from weiner dog to mastiff in 100 years, imagine how much animals could evolve during a 10,000 year period. Could the unique genetic factor that allows dogs to evolve with amazing speed, have once been prevelent throughout the animal and plant kingdoms?

Maybe, someone else can expand on my underdeveloped thoughts.

 

[Papias]

Ukrania wrote:

The vast majority of dog breeds have been developed over the last 120 years. While all dogs are of the same species, just think of the incredible diversity of dog breeds. From pugs, to mastiffs, to chihuahuas, to greyhounds and hundreds of other species have been developed over a really small period of time. Granted this is artificial selection instead of natural selection, but in terms of what is happening at the genetic level their is no difference.

Yes, the evolution of dogs is amazing! They are all even still the same species as the wolf!

However, check a few things above. Yes, the vast majority of final breeds have been made in the last 120 years, but some of that is just the final touches on artifical evolution that has been going on for a long time. We've had domesticated dogs for something between 10,000 and 30,000 years - including separating out breeds.

Next, you can see they can all still interbreed - so even then they haven't speciated from wolves yet. So the rapid evolution of dogs under strong human selection pressures, even over 10,000 years, can't save the ark idea from the problems posed by the hyperevolution creationists propose.

Yes, the genes don't "know" where the selective pressure is coming from - on the genetic level, artificial selection is the same as natural selection, although usually faster.

Have a fun day-

Papias

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

It's hard to see how both mouse and man could have the same common ancestor.

That's because they don't.

Watching a national geographic special on the breeding of dogs, I found this stat really fascinating. The vast majority of dog breeds have been developed over the last 120 years. While all dogs are of the same species, just think of the incredible diversity of dog breeds. From pugs, to mastiffs, to chihuahuas, to greyhounds and hundreds of other breeds have been developed over a really small period of time. Granted this is artificial selection instead of natural selection, but in terms of what is happening at the genetic level their is no difference.

Domestic selection requires (1) intelligence and (2) pre-designed DNA with traits for you to select. If the DNA is not already there you have nothing to select.

Apparently, mutations due to tandom repeats allows for this amazing diversity which can take place in only a few generations of breeding (I only know what I've heard in this 1 hour TV program so don't ask me for more info).

Random mutation has nothing to do with dogs whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGaUEAkqhMY

What's even cooler is that the huge amount of tandom repeats that allow for this speed of change are only found in canids (dogs, wolves, foxes, etc...) and are not found in other animals or even other mammels. That means even if someone spent the next 100 years selectively breeding cows, or sheep or cats, the degree of change would be very small relative to the changes we see between dog breeds.

Are you saying that dogs have more complex DNA and diverse morphology than any other animal?

I mean if you could theoretically go from weiner dog to mastiff in 100 years

A mastiff is a dog. No evolution whatsoever.

imagine how much animals could evolve during a 10,000 year period.

No animal has evolved in the past 10,000 years.

Could the unique genetic factor that allows dogs to evolve with amazing speed, have once been prevelent throughout the animal and plant kingdoms?

Dogs are not evolving. What animal do you claim dogs are evolving into?

 

[laconicstudent]

Dogs are a pretty interesting example of Evolution.

 

[Mallon]

What animal do you claim dogs are evolving into?

 

[BigBadWlf]

That's because they don't.

Humans and mice are closely related, aside from both being mammals He two species have a relatively recent divergence of the mouse and human lineages from our common ancestor (about 75 million years ago), an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes.

The astonishingly close homology that has been revealed in the code between mouse and human genome extends to functionality. Many homologous genes have identical functions in the two species, anatomy, physiology and metabolism are similar and genetic disease pathology can be very similar.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Humans and mice are closely related

The only way they are related is that some humans have mice sized intellects.

aside from both being mammals He two species have a relatively recent divergence of the mouse and human lineages from our common ancestor (about 75 million years ago)

Human beings existed 500 million years ago, therefore cannot possibly have evolved from mice 75 million years ago.

"Again on 1st June 1968, William Meister was climbing a cliff searching for trilobite fossils in the Wheeler Formation in Utah. He broke off a 5 cm thick lump of rock that split open in his hand revealing trilobite fossils embedded in the heel of a sandal print that had toe impressions poking over the edge. He called in Dr. Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist who found several more sandal prints in the shaly limestone, and the footprints of barefoot children, one with a trilobite in the instep." -- Barry Setterfield, geologist, June 1998

"... we could also consider the shoe print, you know, that was found near Antelope Springs Utah by William Meister. And he found that in the year 1968. He was a researcher, a collector of fossils, and he was breaking open pieces of slate rock at this place Antelope Springs and when he broke open one piece of rock he found a shoe print. You know, my coauthor Richard Thompson went to visit William Meister in Utah and he was able to see this specimen, he was able to take photographs of it, and we did a computer analysis, and we showed that the shape of this impression in the rock is exactly like that of a shoe print. And if you look at your shoe, at the bottom of your shoe, you can usually see where your heel is worn down in a certain place, so this print had that same feature in it and also crushed in the middle of the foot print was the fossil of a trilobyte. Now a trilobyte is a shellfish that existed about 500 million years ago in what's called the Cambrian Period." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, March 19th 2008

an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes.

The astonishingly close homology that has been revealed in the code between mouse and human genome extends to functionality. Many homologous genes have identical functions in the two species, anatomy, physiology and metabolism are similar and genetic disease pathology can be very similar.

All that does is prove the Intelligent Designer left His signature on all animals.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

That is not an answer but I'll take your failure to answer a simple question as acknowledgement that evolution is a Victorian Age myth.

 

[BigBadWlf]

The only way they are related is that some humans have mice sized intellects.

Now, now…no need to insult either mice or creationists

Human beings existed 500 million years ago, therefore cannot possibly have evolved from mice 75 million years ago.

evolved about 250,000 years ago in the middle pleistocene in Africa. Archeological evidnece suggests this happened in South Africa durring a period of glaciation resulting in a severe drought in Africa

"Again on 1st June 1968, William Meister was climbing a cliff searching for trilobite fossils in the Wheeler Formation in Utah. He broke off a 5 cm thick lump of rock that split open in his hand revealing trilobite fossils embedded in the heel of a sandal print that had toe impressions poking over the edge. He called in Dr. Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist who found several more sandal prints in the shaly limestone, and the footprints of barefoot children, one with a trilobite in the instep." -- Barry Setterfield, geologist, June 1998

oh that nonsense again….
The specimen does contain several real trilobites, but the "sandal print" itself is a joke. Upon closer inspection the overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor evidence that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation nor foot movement at its margin. And there is no pressure damage to the trilobites supposedly stepped on. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs across the entire slab, beyond the boundary of the supposed print. Ignoring all this one is left to explain if this really is the shoe imprint of a human being what was that person doing walking on the ocean floor?

All that does is prove the Intelligent Designer left His signature on all animals.

Did you even bother to read what was posted?

 

[laconicstudent]

Human beings existed 500 million years ago, therefore cannot possibly have evolved from mice 75 million years ago.

Yes, it would be rather difficult for Genus Homo to be descended from Genus Mus considering they aren't even in the same Order.

Straw man? No one has ever claimed that humans evolved from mice.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

evolved about 250,000 years ago in the middle pleistocene in Africa.

What evolved 250,000 years ago in Africa? Mice?

Even laconicstudent isn't gullible enough to believe that Homo sapiens evolved in Ethiopia 200,000 years ago.

 

[BigBadWlf]

What evolved 250,000 years ago in Africa? Mice?

Even laconicstudent isn't gullible enough to believe that Homo sapiens evolved in Ethiopia 200,000 years ago.

Earlier I asked if you even bothered to read my post….It seems I got an answer

 

[Mallon]

That is not an answer but I'll take your failure to answer a simple question as acknowledgement that evolution is a Victorian Age myth.

No, that emoticon was a sign of frustration that comes from seeing someone call evolution a "hoax" while at the same time demonstrating a deplorable understanding of the topic.

 

[Willtor]

 

[Papias]

AoS wrote:

No animal has evolved in the past 10,000 years.

AoS, you are aware, I assume, that major creationist groups today (such as AIG), claim that “hyperevolution” has occurred, where most species of animals resulted from incredibly rapid evolution in the past 4,500 years? This is because it is obvious that you can’t fit all of the millions of species alive today on an ark the size described in Genesis (not to mention food & other supplies for a year, + waste disposal+, +….). So creationists instead claim that Noah just took 2 (or 7) of each “kind”, often described as “kind” = “family” (above genus, below order), such as "Canid Kind". That still leaves too many kinds to fit into the ark, and now leaves creationists claiming a huge amount of evolution in 4,500 years, while simultaneously claiming that 4 billion (4,000,000,000) years is not enough for larger evolutionary changes, but that’s their problem.

So AoG disagrees with AIG, and other major creationist groups. Go figure.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So AoG disagrees with AIG, and other major creationist groups. Go figure.

Do you mean to say there is actually such thing as Old Earth Creationists?

Shock and awe.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence.

 

[Papias]

AoS, are you aware that both the current (Benedict XVI) and previous (JPII) popes, as well as Vatican officials, have issued strong statements in support of evolution, and against intelligen design?

Papias

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

AoS, are you aware that both the current (Benedict XVI) and previous (JPII) popes, as well as Vatican officials, have issued strong statements in support of evolution, and against intelligen design?

Papias

You should note that my faith is not marked Catholic for a reason.

Anyone who argues against the existence of the Intelligent Designer is also arguing against the existence of God.

 

[philadiddle]

Agonaces of Susa,

Do you think evolution and atheism are synonymous?

And on another note, I'd like to point out that the video by Dembski is completely dishonest. He says that most mutations are deleterious, which is an outright lie. Most mutations are neutral. You think that he would have checked up on something like that, but it just shows you the willful ignorance of anti evolution groups.

 

[Faith.Man]

AoS wrote:

AoS, you are aware, I assume, that major creationist groups today (such as AIG), claim that “hyperevolution” has occurred, where most species of animals resulted from incredibly rapid evolution in the past 4,500 years? This is because it is obvious that you can’t fit all of the millions of species alive today on an ark the size described in Genesis (not to mention food & other supplies for a year, + waste disposal+, +….). So creationists instead claim that Noah just took 2 (or 7) of each “kind”, often described as “kind” = “family” (above genus, below order), such as "Canid Kind". That still leaves too many kinds to fit into the ark, and now leaves creationists claiming a huge amount of evolution in 4,500 years, while simultaneously claiming that 4 billion (4,000,000,000) years is not enough for larger evolutionary changes, but that’s their problem.

So AoG disagrees with AIG, and other major creationist groups. Go figure.

Noah's flood was a local flood, not a global flood as many believe. For a deeper understanding, I refer you to Dr. David Snoke's book "A Biblical Case for an Old Earth". Dr. Snoke is a respected physicist, professor and elder in the Presbyterian Church of America. I on the other hand, I am not a physicist (I'm an engineer), or a professor (I do have a BS in Mechanical Engineering) or a Presbyterian (I'm a non-denominational Christian).

Calculations of the Ark space indicate it would not be big enough for the animals in Noah's land. Of course God, who created the universe with a word causing a big bang, could miraculously make enough room in the Ark for as many animals as He saw fit, altering spatial dimensions as He deemed appropriate.

Have any of you discussed the Cambrian explosion of species and how that effects evolution theory?