Replies

"The first is dogs. Man has removed dogs from the environment and breeding population of wolves for at least 50,000 years. The physical appearance and behavioral make up of dogs has become much different than that of wolves and yet they can breed quite well."

1) That's artificial selection
2) Not all dogs can/will breed with wolves.
3) This artificial selection is a great support for natural selection

"The second is man. Many instances of populations of human populations are isolated for thousands of years in diverse environments and yet when those populations are introduced to other populations breeding readily takes place."

1) Natural selection isn't defined by speciation. It's defined by adaptation to the environment. There is nothing about the fact that people can interbreed that goes against this.
2) A few thousand years is a very short time for speciation to happen. Isolation is not a guarantee that speciation will happen.

"Man has been doing what by Darwin’s theory says should produce new species that can not reproduce with the old species for tens of thousands of years yet man has failed to produce a new species."

Darwin was well aware of selective breeding, far more than you. People have not been trying to make new species. And we have been at it for only a very short time even if we were. That being said, scientists have witnessed speciation.

Indeed. Darwin himself was a pigeon fancier and goes at some length to discuss the differences between natural and artificial selection in the Origin. He draws on this background to show that if anything, man's puny attempts in reshaping animals for human uses pale in comparison to what Nature does to adapt animals and plants to their particular environments.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

2) Not all dogs can/will breed with wolves.

Name one breed and site evidence.

1) That's artificial selection

So is the fruit fly experiment in the article and I believe the proof of most theory is done artificially in the laboratory.

3) This artificial selection is a great support for natural selection

I have a hard time seeing it that way. All of the evidence seems to point the other way.

1) Natural selection isn't defined by speciation. It's defined by adaptation to the environment. There is nothing about the fact that people can interbreed that goes against this. 2) A few thousand years is a very short time for speciation to happen. Isolation is not a guarantee that speciation will happen.

From the article.

In the last 20 years, studies of a number of specific species have demonstrated that natural selection can cause sub-populations to adapt to new environments in ways that reduce their ability to interbreed, an essential first step in the formation of a new species. However, biologists have not known whether these cases represent special exceptions or illustrate a general rule.

The article seem to suggest that the definitive proof of evolution would be the “sub-populations to adapt to new environments in ways that reduce their ability to interbreed” and that has always been my understanding of Darwin’s theory (remember his finches).

Darwin was well aware of selective breeding, far more than you. People have not been trying to make new species. And we have been at it for only a very short time even if we were. That being said, scientists have witnessed speciation.

Estimates I have read is that dogs have been domesticated for between 50 and 100,000 years that’s between 25 and 50 thousand generations. Specialized breeding would have started about 5 to 8 thousand years ago or 2.5 to 4 thousand generations ago with no change in the ability to breed with the root population.

Intension has nothing to do with it; according to Darwin’s theory dogs should be a new species and should not be able to breed with wolves.