Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution. … He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels.
But of course this would be true because we breed dogs for functions that come at the expense of other ones. Functions that help us more than the dog—except insofar as we look after him. But that isn’t natural selection.
Michael Behe writes:
“Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution — the enormous variation in dogs — actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?
The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig’s prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year. … ”
Solid science actually won’t make much difference compared to the Darwinian narrative. For that, see Why the narrative trumps facts. Narrative decides which facts are allowed to matter. Facts about dog breeds are not important when citing them as an example with lots of great photo ops helps market Darwinism to the public.
Follow UD News at Twitter!