Explain cows and the domesticated dog. Both species were created by man from ancient aurochs and wolves due to hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years of selective breeding. Also, if man can create new species, why can't natural selection?
2006-09-27 08:30:40 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
onelm0, can you not read? I just named two!
2006-09-27 08:35:51 · update #1
Yeah, selective breeding sucks. We went from killer wolf to sissy poodle in several millenia...
2006-09-27 08:33:37 · answer #1 · answered by JerseyRick 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Selective breeding over thousands of years to create a "new species" that has traits coming from both orignal species is a lot different than saying an oozing goo life force can jump to an aquatic species that for some reason developed lungs while it was under water so it could breath air when it walked out of the water onto the Earth and then became all the snails, rabbits, squirrels, monkeys, giraffes, apes, cats, dogs, elephants, hedgehogs and people that inhabit the world today.
2006-09-27 15:42:34 · answer #2 · answered by Jaden 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If dogs were left without mans inter fence they would quickly return to a mongrel breed. This has been proven. the point is interference of an intelligent ingredient. I don't deny that some variation within species occurs but it doesn't explain how life arose in the first place or account for the complex information necessary to assemble what was once considered a simple cell.
2006-09-27 15:45:28 · answer #3 · answered by Edward J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You may have to conceed that wolves and dogs are the same species, but you do have a case on aurochs and the modern cow. There is some debate in the matter, but most classify aurochs as Bos primigenius, while modern cattle are Bos taurus, different species.
2006-09-27 15:43:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was an interesting test done with foxes in Russian during the 1980's.
Silver foxes where selectively breed based on their friendliness towards humans. After 8 or 10 generations the foxes no longer had silver coats but where tri-colored, their ears where floppy and they wagged their tails when humans approached. Basically they took on most of the characteristics of domestic dogs.
And sickly boy quotes from creationist pseudo-science. Another straw man that has been debunked long ago. Get up date information.
2006-09-27 15:33:03 · answer #5 · answered by trouthunter 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
> 1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )
Hoyle is wrong. Besides, he's an astronomer, with his head in the clouds. LOL.
> 2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )
Maddox, whoever he is, is just plain wrong. True-breeding Triticale is a new organism.
> 3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )
Barton is right. But, repair isn't 100% efficient, which is why we end up with people who have genetic diseases involving pieces of chromosomes -- Down Syndrome (and a few others) without the trisomy. We also have point mutation genetic diseases like sickle-cell anemia.
> 4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )
Debunked, all of them.
> 5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).
No it doesn't. It just requires re-purposing bits of existing systems.
2006-09-27 16:11:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dogs may have a common ancestor in the wolf but they are still all in the same family. Macro-evolution would be amoeba to guinea pig or bumble bee from a T-Rex. With the thousands of species on earth, you need to prove how each evolved. Good luck with that...
2006-09-27 15:38:47 · answer #7 · answered by Bad Cosmo 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You didn't even mention plants. Virtually every fruit, grain or vegetable we eat, every ornamental plant in our gardens and window boxes, even the grass that covers our lawns --- all products of selective breeding. Not actually new species, but it could be argued that that's only because taxonomists have chosen to describe them as subspecies. Certainly the effects of genetic mutation and selection of preferred traits are obvious.
Creationists and IDers simply refuse to accept that the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection can and have (and DO, even as we speak) bring about subtle changes that accumulate over time. They want "absolute" proof of every single step in the evolutionary process for every single species becuase they know that's an impossibly high standard.
I challenge them to apply the same standards to their "proofs" of their own claims.
2006-09-27 15:42:35 · answer #8 · answered by x 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:
1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )
2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )
3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )
4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )
5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).
(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes
which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is
damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University,
Nobel Prize for Chemistry )
(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,
the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as
incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )
(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change
in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things
are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now
quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and
his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a
gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random
changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.
Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )
2006-09-27 15:36:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I never said that macro evolution coldn't happen. In fact I'd say it does.
The only thing I can't accept is the sheer improbability of life evolving from a single celled organism to extremely complex forms. The cell itself is comparative to an automated city, and to think there are trillions of those in a single human body all working together....That's mind-boggling. I can't leave that to shear chance.
This doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened. I just can't force myself to believe it happened that way. Creation is much better and more probable explanation.
2006-09-27 15:37:17 · answer #10 · answered by The1andOnlyMule 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There have been many observed instances of speciation in the wild and in the lab, as well as huge morphological changes through selective breeding.
Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
Deniers of evolution have nothing to support their view but their astonishing stubbornness to recognize plain facts.
2006-09-27 15:37:23 · answer #11 · answered by Zhimbo 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋