Quote:
Originally Posted by martinss01
actually thats not the current theory on dog evolution.
this is a link to an experiment with the siberian fox:
The domestication of the russian silver fox. (40 year fast track evolution)
basically they took 10's of thousands of siberian foxes and bred them based solely on tameability. within 10 years the animals coats began to change from silver to white. within 15 years the animals developed floppy ears, curly tails, shorter legs and muzzles and were fully domesticated from birth. 80% of the puppies seek human attention whining and licking at cages and compete for human attention with little to no prior human contact. |
While that's an interesting experiment and was probably seen as insightful 40 years ago, recent DNA analysis of most breeds of dogs indicate that they were all domesticated from the wolf.
Here's an interesting episode of
Nature that aired on PBS in 2007 on the subject:
Dogs That Changed the World - Introduction - Dog Breeds | Nature
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinss01
while that certainly isn't an argument against evolution, in fact it supports the theory. what it does mean is that there is a strong chance that no transitional species exists because the evolution was so rapid. if i gave the skeleton of a fox from this experiment from 1950 and the skeleton of its offspring that was born in 1960, it is very likely that any scientist would call them two completely different species with no direct link to one another without the use of dna testing which for many fossils is impossible.
|
Transitional species must exist, otherwise you're claiming that a new species just appeared out of thin air. I think you're confusing the ability to actually have the physical remains of a transitional species in hand vs. the fact that a transitional species existed even if we don't have the remains available to study. For instance, there are thousands of transitional forms between me and the common ancestor of humans and chimps that lived about 6 million years ago, starting with my parents, then my grandparents, then my great-grandparents, etc., etc. going all the way back to an ape-like creature most likely living in Africa. I don't have transitional remains for every one of my ancestors that lived, hell I don't even know where my great grandparents remains are, but I do know that I had great grandparents. And I do know that transitional species have been found linking modern humans to our ape-like ancestor. We don't have the remains of every previous generation that ever lived, but we do have enough pieces to conclude that humans and chimps, gorillas and orangutans shared a common ancestor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinss01
its not my position. my point was to show that some animals and plants have evolved separate from the way nature has intended. that to me is the definition of creationism though i do realize that is not the accepted definition.
|
Nature doesn't have any preconceived "intentions". The current distribution of life on the planet with humans at the top of the food chain was not an inevitable occurrence. If we were to wind the evolutionary clock back 2 billions years and then start it again to let life evolve once more on this planet, it's extremely unlikely that humans would ever evolve once again.