Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: HankReardon

I don't doubt that there is debate on the topic among biologists. This sort of wrestling is what science is all about.

However, I am intrigued by the idea that the existance of the domesticated dog is somehow evidence for the fixity of species and a disproval of evolutionary theory. Here we have an animal which, though similar to wolves, has obvious physical and tempermental differences from wolves. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that contemporary dogs were bred from wolves. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that over several thousand years time men molded wolves into what we wanted them to be. Since these traits are determined genetically, it stands to reason that we have changed their genes over time. In my opinion the existance of domesticated animals supports the ideas that the forms animals take are *not* fixed, but instead can and do change over time. Were this not the case, wolves would have remained wolves and not have been bred into dogs, aurochs would not have been bred into cows, grass would not have been bred into wheat, and strains of streptococcus and gonorrhea bacteria would not have been bred (unintentionally) into penicillin-resistant varieties.


224 posted on 02/08/2005 7:47:40 AM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]


To: Liberal Classic

Are wolves and dogs the same species? Yes or no?


227 posted on 02/08/2005 7:52:32 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson