The curious case of dog evolution

[Mallon]

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

I don't think anyone here has a problem with intelligent design. But restricting ID to a specific form of evidence (say, irreducible complexity) is, I think, pretty dangerous.

 

[Mallon]

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

Yes, we discussed that elsewhere recently.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

restricting ID to a specific form of evidence (say, irreducible complexity) is, I think, pretty dangerous.

No one in restricting ID to a specific form of evidence.

"All things were mixed up together, then Mind came and arranged them all in distinct order." -- Anaxagoras, philosopher, 5th century B.C.

"Then I heard someone who had a book of Anaxagoras, as he said, out of which he read that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was quite delighted at the notion of this, which appeared admirable, and I said to myself; If mind is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in the best place ...." -- Socrates, philosopher, Phaedo, 360 B.C.

"Some people even question whether they [chance and spontaneity] are real or not. They say that nothing happens by chance, but that everything which we ascribe to chance or spontaneity has some definite cause ...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"... if chance were real, it would seem strange indeed, and the question might be raised, why on earth none of the wise men of old in speaking of the causes of generation and decay took account of chance; whence it would seem that they too did not believe that anything is by chance." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"Certainly the early physicists found no place for chance among the causes which they recognized...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"There are some too who ascribe this heavenly sphere and all the worlds to spontaneity. They say that the vortex arose spontaneously, i.e. the motion that separated and arranged in its present order all that exists. This statement might well cause surprise. For they are asserting that chance is not responsible for the existence or generation of animals and plants, nature or mind or something of the kind being the cause of them (for it is not any chance thing that comes from a given seed but an olive from one kind and a man from another); and yet at the same time they assert that the heavenly sphere and the divinest of visible things arose spontaneously, having no such cause as is assigned to animals and plants. Yet if this is so, it is a fact which deserves to be dwelt upon, and something might well have been said about it. For besides the other absurdities of the statement, it is the more absurd that people should make it when they see nothing coming to be spontaneously in the heavens ...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"Spontaneity and chance, therefore, are posterior to intelligence and nature. Hence, however true it may be that the heavens are due to spontaneity, it will still be true that intelligence and nature will be prior causes of this All and of many things in it besides." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

"... Anaxagoras, who says that all things were together and at rest for an infinite period of time, and that then Mind introduced motion and separated them...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, 350 B.C.

"... nor again could it be right to entrust so great a matter [nature] to spontaneity and chance. When one man said, then, that reason was present -- as in animals, so throughout nature -- as the cause of order and of all arrangement, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly adopted these views, but Hermotimus of Clazomenae is credited with expressing them earlier." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I, 350 B.C.

"As with these productions of art, so also is it with the productions of nature." -- Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Book I, 350 B.C.

"Empedocles, then, was in error when he said that many of the characters presented by animals were merely the result of incidental occurrences during their development; for instance, that the backbone was divided as it is into vertebrae, because it happened to be broken owing to the contorted position of the foetus in the womb. In so saying he overlooked the fact that propogation implies a creative seed endowed with certain formative properties. Secondly, he neglected another fact, namely, that the parent animal pre-exists, not only in idea, but actually in time. For man is generated from man; and thus it is the possession of certain characters by the parent that determines the development of like characters in the child." -- Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, Book I, 350 B.C.

"Yet even from this inferior intelligence of man we may discover the existence of some intelligent agent that is divine, and wiser than ourselves; for, as Socrates says in Xenophon, from whence had man his portion of understanding?" -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, Chapter VI, 1st century B.C.

"Yet these people doubt whether the universe, from whence all things arise and are made, is not the effect of chance, or some necessity, rather than the work of reason and a divine mind. According to them, Archimedes shows more knowledge in representing the motions of the celestial globe than nature does in causing them, though the copy is so infinitely beneath the original." -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, Chapter XXXV, 1st century B.C.

"Can any one in his sense imagine that this disposition of the stars, and this heaven so beautifully adorned, could ever have been formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Or what other nature, being destitute of intellect and reason, could possibly have produced these effects, which not only required reason to bring them about, but the very character of which could not be understood and appreciated without the most strenuous exertions of well-directed reason?" -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, Chapter XLIV, 1st century B.C.

"Again, he who does not perceive the soul and mind of man, his reason, prudence and discernment, to be the work of a divine providence, seems himself to be destitute of those faculties." -- Marcus. T. Cicero, philosopher, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, Chapter LIX, 1st century B.C.

"He [Anaxagoras] said that the beginning of the universe was mind and matter, mind being the creator and matter that which came into being. For that when all things were together, mind came and arranged them." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Agonaces of Susa,

Do you think evolution and atheism are synonymous?

Depends on how you define evolution.

"Well, evolution is a kind of funny word. It depends on how one defines it. If it means simply change over time, even the most rock-ribbed fundamentalist knows that the history of the Earth has changed, that there's been change over time. If you define evolution precisely though to mean the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, that's textbook definition of Neo-Darwinism, biologists of the first rank have real questions. -- Paul A. Nelson, philosopher, 2008

If you define evolution as spontaneous and random undirected mutation then yes that is atheism.

However, if you define evolution as directed by intelligent design then that is not atheism.

"...there is a God as a designer, who happens to be using the evolutionary process to achieve larger goals — which are, as far as we human beings can see, self-consciousness and conscience." -- Owen Gingrich, astronomer/historian, September 2006

He says that most mutations are deleterious, which is an outright lie. Most mutations are neutral.

That won't cut it.

According to evolution, if mutations do not confer advantage they are selected out. Only mutations with advantage survive.

 

[metherion]

That won't cut it.

According to evolution, if mutations do not confer advantage they are selected out. Only mutations with advantage survive.

Not true. If there is no effect there is nothing to select against. Neutral changes can pile up as long as they don't have a negative effect on the critter in question. And neutral changes can pile up and be turned into positive changes that are selected for or negative ones selected against after a while. Or they can even remain neutral.

Metherion

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Not true. If there is no effect there is nothing to select against. Neutral changes can pile up as long as they don't have a negative effect on the critter in question. And neutral changes can pile up and be turned into positive changes that are selected for or negative ones selected against after a while. Or they can even remain neutral.

Metherion

Can you give a specific example please?

 

[laconicstudent]

Can you give a specific example please?

This seems like a fairly decent example of a neutral mutation.

Or at least I'm not actually aware of any particular benefit derived from eye pigmentation.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Eye color is determined by multiple genes therefore not a random mutation.

Only an Intelligent Designer could have created them.

"If God had made colours, but had not made the faculty of seeing them, what would have been their use? None at all. On the other hand, if He had made the faculty of vision, but had not made the objects such as to fall under the faculty, what in that case also would have been the use of it? None at all. Well, suppose that He had made both, but had not made light? In that case, also, they would've been of no use. Who is it, then, who has fitted this to that and that to this? And who is it that has fitted the knife to the case and the case to the knife? Is it no one? And, indeed, from the very structure of things which have attained their completion, we are accustomed to show that the work is certainly the act of some artificer, and that it has not been constructed without purpose. Does then each of these things demonstrate the workman, and do not visible things and the faculty of seeing and light demonstrate Him? And the existence of male and female, and the desire of each for conjunction, and the power of using the parts which are constructed, do not even these declare the workman?" -- Epictetus, philosopher, Discourses, Book I, 1st century

 

[philadiddle]

Why do you quote so many philosophers to settle issues on science?

If you define evolution as spontaneous and random undirected mutation then yes that is atheism.

So anyone who watches a weather report is accepting an atheist worldview? Think about it, the weather is quite random, our ability to predict it is limited and is often wrong. There is no detectable intelligent force that directly drives it. So isn't meteorology just part of the atheist agenda?

However, if you define evolution as directed by intelligent design then that is not atheism.

So any field of science that doesn't claim there is an intelligent force behind it is atheist?

That won't cut it.

According to evolution, if mutations do not confer advantage they are selected out. Only mutations with advantage survive.

You missed what I was saying. He said that most mutations are deleterious, which is just plain wrong. No matter what your view on evolution and how it works, the fact of the matter is that most mutations are neutral. He was wrong, plain and simple. If you choose to subscribe to the thoughts a mathmetician who is ignorant on the subjects that he speaks out against, that is your choice. I'm just pointing out one particular place where he lied.

 

[philadiddle]

Eye color is determined by multiple genes therefore not a random mutation.

Only an Intelligent Designer could have created them.

"If God had made colours, but had not made the faculty of seeing them, what would have been their use? None at all. On the other hand, if He had made the faculty of vision, but had not made the objects such as to fall under the faculty, what in that case also would have been the use of it? None at all. Well, suppose that He had made both, but had not made light? In that case, also, they would've been of no use. Who is it, then, who has fitted this to that and that to this? And who is it that has fitted the knife to the case and the case to the knife? Is it no one? And, indeed, from the very structure of things which have attained their completion, we are accustomed to show that the work is certainly the act of some artificer, and that it has not been constructed without purpose. Does then each of these things demonstrate the workman, and do not visible things and the faculty of seeing and light demonstrate Him? And the existence of male and female, and the desire of each for conjunction, and the power of using the parts which are constructed, do not even these declare the workman?" -- Epictetus, philosopher, Discourses, Book I, 1st century

This quote has nothing to do with an argument against the scientific theory of common decent. It's an argument against atheism. When you unbrainwash yourself from the propaganda of fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists (like Richard Dawkins) then you might start appreciating the incredible things that God does through His creation.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Why do you quote so many philosophers to settle issues on science?

Because philosophers tend to study the truth and scientists don't.

"It has been my sad observation that by mid-career there are very few professionals left truly working for the advancement of science, as opposed to the advancement of self. And given enough people with strong enough interests, professional peer pressure takes over from there. Peer pressure in science, as elsewhere in society, consists of alternately attacking and ignoring the people who advocate a contrary idea, and discrediting their motives and/or competence, in order to achieve conformity." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

So anyone who watches a weather report is accepting an atheist worldview?

Why would you think that?

Think about it, the weather is quite random, our ability to predict it is limited and is often wrong. There is no detectable intelligent force that directly drives it. So isn't meteorology just part of the atheist agenda?

No.

"Spontaneity and chance, therefore, are posterior to intelligence and nature. Hence, however true it may be that the heavens are due to spontaneity, it will still be true that intelligence and nature will be prior causes of this All and of many things in it besides." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.

So any field of science that doesn't claim there is an intelligent force behind it is atheist?

Yes.

He said that most mutations are deleterious, which is just plain wrong. No matter what your view on evolution and how it works, the fact of the matter is that most mutations are neutral. He was wrong, plain and simple. If you choose to subscribe to the thoughts a mathmetician who is ignorant on the subjects that he speaks out against, that is your choice. I'm just pointing out one particular place where he lied.

Citation needed.

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

 

[metherion]

Eye color is determined by multiple genes therefore not a random mutation.

Only an Intelligent Designer could have created them.

Your premises are flawed. Multiple controller genes does not mean that it could not have occurred via randomly selected mutations.

Also, most mutations that happen in ‘junk’ noncoding DNA will be neutral, unless they activate/deactivate.

Or substitutions in codons that code for the same amino acid would most likely be neutral, unless different codons process into amino acids at different efficiencies.

An example would be GG*. GGT, GGC, GGA, and GGG all code for glycine. So if you start with GG(any letter) and get a substitution into GG(any other letter) there would be no effect.

Metherion

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

This quote has nothing to do with an argument against the scientific theory of common decent.

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'" -- Genesis 1:26

Bacteria are not in God's image.

It's an argument against atheism.

So is the myth of chance.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Your premises are flawed. Multiple controller genes does not mean that it could not have occurred via randomly selected mutations.

Also, most mutations that happen in ‘junk’ noncoding DNA will be neutral, unless they activate/deactivate.

Or substitutions in codons that code for the same amino acid would most likely be neutral, unless different codons process into amino acids at different efficiencies.

An example would be GG*. GGT, GGC, GGA, and GGG all code for glycine. So if you start with GG(any letter) and get a substitution into GG(any other letter) there would be no effect.

Metherion

Natural selection can only happen after the DNA has already been intelligently designed.

Natural selection and random mutation do not explain the origin of the first self-replicating organisms.

 

[Assyrian]

We don't use different coloured eyes to see different colours.

 

[metherion]

Natural selection can only happen after the DNA has already been intelligently designed.

Natural selection and random mutation do not explain the origin of the first self-replicating organisms.

DNA does not have to be intelligently designed. Neither does RNA.

Natural selection and random mutation do not need to explain the origin of the first self-replicating organisms, they occur after life exists.

Now, are you going to get to the point I addressed, which is an example of a neutral mutation, or go off on a flawed tangent again?

Metherion

 

[K9_Trainer]

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.

Since I studied this for a long time, I can elaborate a bit and give some more info.

Its not just tandem repeats that cause such dramatic changes in dogs appearance over a short amount of time (tandem repeats are found in other animals, its frequently used to track parentage/genealogy by DNA and there's alls orts of databases all over the net)....Its actually the fact that dogs tend to have slippery tandem repeats, or, mutations in their tandem repeats. When the repeat in the DNA is being copied, a mistake occurs and it inserts a different number of sequence copies (FTR, a tandem repeat is a sequence of genes being repeated, like ATTCGATTCG, the sequence ATTCG is repeated). This is what causes a dramatic change in appearance.

You can't have a totally new, dramatic change like the kind we see in dogs without some kind of mutation. You can only get so far with a gene pool. If you keep breeding short cows to short cows....Your stock is going to get shorter, yes. But you'll never develop an extreme such as dwarfism (as seen in the Corgi breeds in dogs) without a mutation. In dogs, you take a trait like nose length...This can be extreme in either direction...It can be so short that it seriously restricts the dogs ability to breathe, such as in bulldogs or pugs. Or on the other hand, it can be so long, that puppies cannot even properly nurse, they must be bottlefed like most borzois. You look at the gene sequence that determines nose length and you'll find that the number of times the sequence is repeated is directly related to how long or short the nose is. A mutation in the repeat caused the sequence to not get copied the theoretically correct number of times.

The other type of mutation that is known to science is single point mutation. This does not occur as an error when the DNA is copied. It instead occurs when a single base nucleotide with another nucleotide of either DNA or RNA. It's a pretty rare occurrence, only about once out of every 100 million DNA sites per generation. Mutations in slippery tandem repeats, however, occur about 100000 times as often. So that should give you an idea on how much faster it is.

At this point in time, we really have no clue why dogs have slippery tandem repeats that while most other species, including humans, do not. Just a personal speculation of mine...Domestication does play a pretty big role in this..... The dog's original ancestor, which would be some kind of wolf but not necessarily like the wolf we know today, may or may not have had the potential to mutate like that pre-domestication. Natural selection did not favor the extreme mutations. Somehow during the domestication process, its possible that the switch got turned on. There was no more natural selection controlling traits, traits that were at one time unfavorable for survival no longer mattered because the dog was protected by man.

One man worked in the fur coat industry and raised foxes. Now, foxes are not fun to handle. They are wild animals and very unlike dogs. They're flighty, fearful, feisty and they are quick to bite. This man decided to domesticate them to make them easier to handle for the fur coat industry. As he selected for friendliness and docility, for some reason, the beautiful silver coat that once served as camouflage started going away. The friendlier the foxes got generation after generation, the more "dog like" they became...Developing black and white, piebald coats and floppy ears.

So with canines, there's likely a tie between temperament/domestication and appearance. It seems that the ability to mutate so quickly and extremely in appearance via slippery tandem repeats only came about when their temperament no longer needed to be a certain way in order to survive.

Dogs are certainly unique in this though because they are thus far the only animal we've been able to change so dramatically through domestication. Everything else, well, we've only gotten so far with.

Anyway, you can feel free to PM me if you want to discuss, or hit me up on MSN. This kinda stuff is my passion in life and I would enjoy having somebody to discuss and speculate with

 

[philadiddle]

Because philosophers tend to study the truth and scientists don't.

I would rather have a conversation with you than with your misapplied quotes.

"It has been my sad observation that by mid-career there are very few professionals left truly working for the advancement of science, as opposed to the advancement of self. And given enough people with strong enough interests, professional peer pressure takes over from there. Peer pressure in science, as elsewhere in society, consists of alternately attacking and ignoring the people who advocate a contrary idea, and discrediting their motives and/or competence, in order to achieve conformity." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993

Do you have an example of a specific instance where a creationist paper was rejected from scientific publication? If so, what are the reasons?

Why would you think that?

Your comments about evolution lead me to believe that you think if something runs on natural mechanisms that it means God has nothing to do with it. God made the laws of physics that govern the weather, even though it has purely naturalistic causes. God also made the laws that make evolution happen. It's not an atheist science.

So any field of science that doesn't claim there is an intelligent force behind it is atheist?

Yes.

So does this mean that modern medicine is part of the atheist agenda? I guess this will be put to the test if you get seriously injured.

What if you are looking at buying a home and the inspector is looking at things from a naturalistic point of view. You know, if he said that the dampness in the basement was possibly from a crack in the foundation, instead of attributing it to a supernatural spirit. Would you trust him?

Do you ever drive over bridges? They are designed with natural forces in mind and don't take into consideration supernatural forces. Are they unsafe to drive on?

Citation needed.

The 22 second mark to the 24 second mark. (give or take a second)

Are you willing to admit he was wrong or do you see him as some kind of prophet?

 

[philadiddle]

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'" -- Genesis 1:26

Bacteria are not in God's image.


So is the myth of chance.

Is the dust of the ground in God's image?

What do you mean "myth of chance"?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

DNA does not have to be intelligently designed. Neither does RNA.

Oh really?

"There is no unintelligent processes known to science that can generate codes and machines." -- Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon, February 5th 2009

Natural selection and random mutation do not need to explain the origin of the first self-replicating organisms, they occur after life exists.

Exactly. Only Intelligent Design can explain the origin of life.