diversity in domestic dogs has originated through selective breeding
Huh? There has been a designing intelligence at work here - the people who have been breeding dogs to select for various characteristics.
Leave it to a Darwinist to try and use the intelligent intervention of humans as proof of magic.
Amusing. But it’s not “survival of the cutest,” it’s “selective breeding of the cutest,” or of the most useful for various human purposes.
It’s not blind chance that results in different breeds of dog.
Also, of course, no one doubts that there is intraspecies evolution, natural as well as human guided. It’s general evolution, guided by blind chance, that is in question.
The article concludes with one of the good Darwinian doctors saying: “This study illustrates the power of Darwinian selection with so much variation produced in such a short period of time. The evidence is very strong.”
No, it illustrates how human intervention can produce remarkable variation within a species.
Dogs which don’t meet the breeders stringent target are either killed, or eliminated from reproduction in that breed, so change is rapid. Meanwhile wolves, which are subject only to natural selection, have not changed visibly in all the time humans have been watching them.
Domestic dogs didn’t evolve through natural selection, they’ve been bred to be what they are. No one would argue that dairy cows or domestic turkeys are examples of the “survival of the fittest”
I’m no scientist, but dog selection is not natural selection. Humans breed dogs, not nature. Not that we’re never tricked into loving one kind over another, but for the most part it’s on purpose.
Darwin was right, “Without a walrus head kitties do not do well in cold attic waters, on the other hand a walrus tusk will poke your eye right out if he tries to lick your face.”
Darwin and his contemporaries developed the idea that species themselves were the result of evolutionary change.
So technically, so long as the dogs are all the same species (i.e. can interbreed), Darwin isn't proved right.
Or at least that's what I was able to get from educational television.
It is kind of cool, though, that two dogs can be as diffferent in appearance as dogs and creatures of other species.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Breeding merely accelerates and/or exaggerates randomness ("diversity") in the genome.Domestic dogs have followed their own evolutionary path, twisting Darwin's directive 'survival of the fittest' to their own needs -- and have proved him right in the process, according to a new study by biologists Chris Klingenberg, of The University of Manchester and Abby Drake, of the College of the Holy Cross in the US. The study, published in The American Naturalist on January 20, 2010, compared the skull shapes of domestic dogs with those of different species across the order Carnivora, to which dogs belong along with cats, bears, weasels, civets and even seals and walruses. It found that the skull shapes of domestic dogs varied as much as those of the whole order. It also showed that the extremes of diversity were farther apart in domestic dogs than in the rest of the order.IOW, selective breeding brought out lots of diversity in shape and so on, which basically negates the idea that it was driven by a search for cuteness. :') |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||