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.
I’m a huge dog fan but the Darwinians certainly speak as evidence for the failure of their thesis, else how did they survive? They sure aren’t the smartest and I’ll bet not the cutest.
Dogs continue to be but ONE SPECIES.