Do you consider selective breeding to be evidence of evolution?

Question

And here, I'm talking the careful selection of animals to produce different strains and breeds, rather than anything in the Eugenics line...

I'm really just curious how creationists interpret the effects, here. We're historically aware that say, dogs came from a common stock, but by careful selection of mates we've managed to end up with animals as diverse as the Chihuahua and the St Bernard. We're still seeing new breeds of domestic cat and dog being developed even today.

How do you guys interpret this? Is this evidence that to radically change the appearance of a species requires a hand on the wheel (ourselves in this case), or did God include dachshund genes in wolves? Or is this an example of evolution at work, albeit one distorted and accelerated by human intervention?

Mike: I don't think anyone claims evolution is 'random', either, merely an adaptation of species to environment and circumstances. In the narrow case I'm suggesting, these changes are imposed rather than natural.

Answer 1

Artificial selection is proof that natural selection works.

Answer 2

So just because you can breed two variations of the same kind, that makes it evolution.

Micro-evolution is your term, not ours.

Here is a questions for you... CANIS RUFUS and CANIS LATRAN are two different species yet they can breed and produce viable young. (not sterile) These can continue as a new species without difficulty. Are they actually one kind or is it evolution?

Okay, If an Ethiopian Man marries a Chinese Woman and produce viable young is this evolution or are they one kind?
The point here is a variation of one kind does not = evolution.

A simple point - If a species can mate with another species and produce viable young are they really different species?
Are they really a different kind or a variation of a kind?

The assumption is that the variations progress to create a new Kind. Where as variation of a Kind is the progressive loss of genetic potential.

It is assumed that there is a progressive infusion of beneficial mutations. This assumption is the gain of genetic potential through mutations. Where as the data says no.

You make the assumption, yet it is untested and unobserved.

Assume all you want, your assumptions do not make it true.

Journey Well...



"Most of this confusion is caused by the vague use of the word "kind" or "type" to describe an animal. That works fine in daily lay man's usage, but it makes for incredibly poor taxonomy because it's too subjective. At what point does a dog officially no longer become "wolf-like"? When differences between two species are pointed out, the creationist simply re-defines "kind" to be vague enough to include those two species. You can't argue with people who have no visual concept of time or exponents."

Response:
At what point does the offspring of the Ethiopian Man and Chinese Woman become more ethiopian or more chinese? Which of the two races are their children?

Answer 3

The popular claim of creationists is to say "Oh, that's still microevolution, not macroevolution." In other words, they can't comprehend a change that might take more than several centuries to view. Which is like saying it's impossible to walk across a football field because nobody can make that many meters in a single step. Evolution, of course, doesn't work like that.

Most of this confusion is caused by the vague use of the word "kind" or "type" to describe an animal. That works fine in daily lay man's usage, but it makes for incredibly poor taxonomy because it's too subjective. At what point does a dog officially no longer become "wolf-like"? When differences between two species are pointed out, the creationist simply re-defines "kind" to be vague enough to include those two species. You can't argue with people who have no visual concept of time or exponents.

Answer 4

The dog cat analogy is a whole different aspect of the larger theological issue you appear to be touching on here. By the way, there is huge debate still going on over the 'evolution of the dog' whether from wolf, jackal or a mix.

I can't speak for ALL creationists. Didn't know I was one until this YA forum.This is just MY take on it. Creation IS the structure and framework. Evolution's a process from WITHIN the structure. Selective breeding is part of the free-will.
Why the difficulty or confusion? Addiction to debate and drama is also part of free-will. As to the man from ape THEORY, that's all it is. No missing links. Our bodies are more closely related to sheep (odd that there are all these sheep references in the Bible and then science proves that out - hmmmm - not that I'm saying we evolve from sheep, either, but it blows the 'monkey' theory out the water)
If one could accept a theory called BigBang, why not accept God moved and it all cascades from that? True science proves God - [if you read Einstein more closely you'll see where that comes from], not the other way round.

And, as someone once said [don't know who] To those who believe, no explanation is necessary, and to those who don't believe, no explanation is enough.

Nuff said from me.
Peace to you on your Truth search.

Answer 5

I agree pretty much with what Chas_chas wrote: "The difference between creationists and evolutionists is that they interpret the evidence with different assumptions. Noone know for sure what happenned in the past since there was noone there. The past is not subject to the scientific method of observation, test, hypothesis, etc. What an objective person can do is to look at the evidence, examine the competing explanations (with their assumptions), and see which explanation is the best." I was raised from a scientific perspective, so I used to believe in evolution - without ever really checking any evidence, I just accepted it like a belief system, a religion. Considering, however, that many biblical reports were confirmed by archeology and that the success of gradualism and the theory of evolution certainly had ideological reasons - it served to undermine the picture the medieval church painted of ancient history. When I learned that there is a third position called catastrophism, which does not deny the possibility of catastrophes such as a global flood as the bible reports, it had me scratching my head. Catastrophism is different from creationism in that catastrophists come from a scientific background and do not believe in a personal creator god as creationists do - but they acknowledge the possibility of catastrophes in the past that had extraterrestrial origins (the extinctions of the dinosaurs, for example), and some catastrophists also acknowledge the possibility that some of these catastrophes happend within human history (archeologists do dig out destruction layers all around the world in their excavations). For me, evolution isn´t a scientific theory - there cannot be a scientific theory about the past, only plausible reconstructions. Evolutionism to me is a religion of the modern age, tied to modern capitalism basically - just like christianity is a religion. If you want to check out what catastrophists have to say about their view of what might have happened, check out Trevor Palmer: Controversy - Catastrophism and Evolution. Victor Clube/Bill Napier: The Cosmic Winter D.S. Allen/J.B. Delair: Cataclysm. A more controversial name connected with catastrophism would be Immanuel Velikovsky, who essentially set out to prove that the biblical record was correct using scientific arguments ... in a fierce debate with evolutionists, he was dismissed as a charlatan. I haven´t made up my mind yet as to what to believe, and I haven´t had the time to check out the debate between evolutionists and catastrophists yet, including their ideological implications (religion vs. science, feudalism vs. capitalism and democracy) - but I will do in due time. Just wanted to share that there is a third view besides evolutionism and creationism - I don´t have an agenda here, u gonna have to make up your mind yourself. Cheers!

Answer 6

Does not sound random to me :) But if you are pointing out that changes (within a species) do occur over time I don't think that even the most hard core creationist denies that so the argument is a straw man.

Answer 7

in reference to domestic animals such as dogs and cats......it IS a form of eugenics.....the purposeful manipulation of breeding stock to produce a desired end result, not necessarily "evolution" as it is done by humans, better termed "genetically engineered"....even though it relies on simple breeding programs vs. actual genetic manipulation

Answer 8

Good question. Here's a star.

Answer 9

If the animals are doing it.....
How do we dare to stay behinde if it can save all our lives???