Just For Fun News speciation

Dog breeds and speciation: Some interesting information

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG Mainly about the history of intelligent design of dogs, for better or worse. Fascinating stuff about the turnspit dog. Also. here:

In order to understand how a breed can go extinct, first we need to get into what a breed is. And in order to get into that, we need to get into what a dog is.

According to the fossil record, the canine was first domesticated between 11,000 and 32,000 years ago. One theory is that ancient humans trapped the pups of ancient wolves, raised them as pets, and used them to hunt. This theory is known as the “hunter hypothesis.”

Another popular theory is known as the “scavenger hypothesis.” From an expert opinion in National Geographic:

Most likely, it was wolves that approached us, not the other way around, probably while they were scavenging around garbage dumps on the edge of human settlements. The wolves that were bold but aggressive would have been killed by humans, and so only the ones that were bold and friendly would have been tolerated.

In either hypothesis — hunter or scavenger — wolves found themselves among humans. In such an environment, a wolf did best if he had certain traits: tameness, obedience, and a general tendency to treat humans as neither predators nor food. Ancient humans had food and shelter to share with the kinder wolves, and weapons and cunning to fight the more aggressive ones.

As consequence, those boldest and friendliest wolves flourished, procreated, and begat later generations.

Good thinking. But the dog origins story may be too simple.

For one thing, it is hard to focus on two ends of a spectrum at once. Kinder wolves make better fireside pets but not good junkyard dogs. Ancient humans, like modern humans, needed to preserve canine qualities in balance, obviously. That’s design. It would require identifying and keeping breeds apart from the beginning.

The only animal the working security dog needs to not attack for sure is his handler (or other friendly dogs/handlers). Otherwise, the dog does whatever his handler tells him, whether it is vicious or not.

But if he were living in a wolf pack, he would—in the same way—need to know enough not to attack the alpha wolf. Also to get along with other wolves.

It may be that the real human achievement was to preserve separable qualities in different breeds. Thoughts?

Of possible interest to some:

The perfect therapy dog (you fall asleep just looking at him)

Guide dogs for the deaf

Note: Cats have fared better than dogs, if you go by the fact that a feline is pretty much the same, no matter what. But then, the cat always wins, right?

51 Replies to “Dog breeds and speciation: Some interesting information

  1. 1
    lack of Focus says:

    “Ancient humans, like modern humans, needed to preserve canine qualities in balance, obviously. That’s design.”

    It may be “directed” but it is not design as I understand it from what I have read on UD. Humans select the traits that they prefer, but those traits must already exist.

  2. 2
    Joe says:

    It may be “directed” but it is not design as I understand it from what I have read on UD.

    That is due to your obvious lack of focus. Artificial selection is an intelligent design mechanism.

  3. 3
    lack of Focus says:

    That is due to your obvious lack of focus. Artificial selection is an intelligent design mechanism.”

    Says you. But what do the other design proponents say? Were the various traits that artificial selection depends on designed by humans?

  4. 4
    Joe says:

    Says reality. Dog breeds wouldn’t exist if not for humans. Period, end of story. But then again we know you won’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion. 😉

    Were the various traits that artificial selection depends on designed by humans?

    Is that a requirement? Why?

  5. 5
    Andre says:

    Lack of focus

    Can a person really be that ignorant? Darwin based natural selection on the fact of artificial selection. He reasoned that if intelligent breeders can create artificial selection then nature can do so also.

    http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-on.....n-pigeons/

    Numbnuts

  6. 6
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @lack of Focus:

    It may be “directed” but it is not design as I understand it from what I have read on UD. Humans select the traits that they prefer, but those traits must already exist.

    Eugenics, computer programming, dog breeding, are all intelligent design mechanisms.

  7. 7
    [email protected] says:

    Guesswork is the hallmark of Evolution. It absolutely kills me when you hear as if it was fact “man needed to look above the tall grass, so they started to walk upright” Constantly turning to Lamarkism to explain the un-explainable.. Evolutionists are so confused that they simply tell stories, like the above “hypotheses”, and act as if this is somehow an evolutionary example – but all they are saying is, the environment changed, so the organism changed to match it… really? Now even Finch beaks are turning out to be epigenetics in action, not anything random – nothing in life is random – if it were, it would never have gotten started, let alone achieved such variety. No matter what they teach we are learning that each kind or variety of animal has a toolkit, and its cells cognitively search for the right genes to work on, even to the point of experimentation….. “Natural Genetic Engineering” what is next? “Natural programming” ?

  8. 8
    bFast says:

    lack of Focus, “It may be “directed” but it is not design as I understand it from what I have read on UD.”

    Lack, I so agree with you. While artificial selection is clearly the act of intelligence, I see nothing that artificial selection can do that natural selection cannot do.

    It is the limits of artificial selection that make a compelling case against natural selection. Artificial selection has proved very poor at crossing the species boundary — my Pomeranian is still a wolf.

    While artificial selection is an intelligent design agent, it is very much a minor player. If it is not, then the ID hypothesis is moot.

  9. 9
    polistra says:

    Seems like we’re missing the point of genomics here, by assuming that breeding is the crucial factor in eliminating some characteristics. Every dog has all the necessary qualities to some degree, and breeding only ‘turns down’ some qualities.

    Even a pug, the most domestic and frightened and ‘workless’ of breeds, can be a herder if given the chance.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYq9S8rE80s

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    bFast:

    While artificial selection is clearly the act of intelligence, I see nothing that artificial selection can do that natural selection cannot do.

    Natural selection couldn’t produce the dog breeds. Oops…

    It is the limits of artificial selection that make a compelling case against natural selection.

    Absolutely as natural selection has less power than artificial selection.

    While artificial selection is an intelligent design agent, it is very much a minor player.

    In the case of dog breeds and all we humans have a hand in, yes.

  11. 11
    ppolish says:

    “Artificial selection has proved very poor at crossing the species boundary — my Pomeranian is still a wolf.”

    Artificial Selection is old fashion. SheepMan will be designed – not the result of a pregnancy.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7681.....art-human/

    New species are designed, not selected.

  12. 12
    lack of Focus says:

    The genetic variation necessary to change from a wolf to all of the different breeds we see today were either present in the original wolf population or arose through mutations in the last few thousand years. Humans didn’t design any of it other than limiting which dogs bred with each other.

    If you continue to claim that they are designed, please take a pair of chihuahuas and artificially select a wolf by selective breeding of their offspring. I will even make it easier. You can include the entire population of pure bred chihuahuas in your interbreeding exercises. Good luck with your efforts.

    And the argument that we have not observed the evolution of new species is a false argument. It is humans who define what a species is. Lions and tigers can produce viable (non-sterile) offspring, but we call them different species. But a Great Dane and a chihuahua will never produce viable offspring without serious intervention. But we don’t call them different species. Yet we consider wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs to be different species even though they routinely interbreed and produce viable offspring.

  13. 13
    Joe says:

    Your position cannot account for the genetic variation in wolves- it cannot account for wolves.

    And only a moron would think we could make a wolf from a dog.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Many times neo-Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins did, will claim dog breeding as an example of macro-evolution.

    Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – Mar 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record.
    http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/.....rd-lonnig/

    What Darwin Didn’t Know – Robert Carter – 2014 video
    (21 minute mark,,, jackals, wolves, and huskies interbred by Russians to be drug sniffing dogs)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1fdJJCQOPk

    But actually, contrary to what neo-Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins think, dog breeding is a excellent example of ‘limited variation within kind’ wrought by the culling and deterioration, of preexisting genetic information.

    podcast – On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....1_14-08_00
    Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution?
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_07-08_00

    The Dog Delusion – October 30, 2014
    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.
    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.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90751.html

    Caveman’s Best Friend, Evolution’s Newest Upset – October 2011
    Excerpt: Our view of domestication as a process has also begun to change, with recent research showing that, in dogs, alterations in only a small number of genes can have large effects in terms of size, shape and behavior.,,, It should be noted that dogs and wolves can interbreed,,,
    http://crev.info/content/20111.....est_friend

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, Natural Selection (and Artificial Selection as in dog breeding), although repeatedly invoked by Darwinists as this ‘great creative engine’ for evolution that knows no bounds to its power, in reality, away from the Darwinian rhetoric and imagination, actually consistently reduces the genetic information of organisms.

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED – Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk

    From a Frog to a Prince – video (17:00 minute mark Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information) – No Beneficial Mutations – Gitt – Spetner – Denton – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClleN8ysimg&feature=player_detailpage#t=1031

    In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species:

    ,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves)
    http://jhered.oxfordjournals.o.....0/1/71.pdf

    As well, contrary to Darwinian thought, inbreeding (Artificial Selection) is a very big problem in ‘Pure Breds’ that must be carefully guarded against in animal husbandry since it promotes genetic degradation:

    Inbreeding – Pros and cons
    Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise.
    http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm

    100 Years of Breed “Improvement” – Comparison photos of Pure Breds from 100 years ago to today – Sept. 2012
    Excerpt: “Several “pure bred” dogs are now so incredibly inbred they have many genetic problems that severely reduce their quality of life.” The dogs on the left are from the 1915 book, ‘Breeds of All Nations‘ by W.E. Mason. The examples on the right are modern examples from multiple sources (which show the progressive genetic deterioration of the pure breds).
    http://dogbehaviorscience.word.....provement/

    The Bizarre Truth About Purebred Dogs (and Why Mutts Are Better) – Adam Ruins Everything – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....38;t=2m42s

    Of supplemental note: Dogs are found to have originated a single time from wolves instead of several times as was previously thought:

    Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of Dogs – January 2014
    Excerpt Discussion: We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations (Figures 4–5, Table S10),,
    Our analysis suggests that none of the sampled wolf populations is more closely related to dogs than any of the others, and that dogs diverged from wolves at about the same time that the sampled wolf populations diverged from each other (Figures 5A, 5C).
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.1004016

    Verse and Music:

    Matthew 15:27
    And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

    bow wow wow yippy yo yippy yay
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KML0NxxGe-k

  16. 16
    lack of Focus says:

    In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species:”

    As is predicted, and confirmed, by evolutionary theory. The theory that Joe claims doesn’t exist. Did the designer provide the large genetic variation in the original wolf population so that we could produce greyhounds, chihuahuas and pikanese?

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    “As is predicted, and confirmed, by evolutionary theory.”

    So neo-Darwinism predicts that genetic information will be lost during supposed ‘speciation’ events???

    Funny, that is exactly what Genetic Entropy (i.e. limited variation within kind) predicts as well. Moreover, the fact that humans (and inbred dogs) are deteriorating genetically is an established fact. What is not an established fact is the question of whether Darwinian processes can genetate a single gene/protein much less generating wolves (or humans) in the first place!

    Question: did humans originate because of a culling of information that was in the original human population, or was it a culling of information from the original ape population? Or perhaps a culling of information from the original bacteria population?

  18. 18
    Joe says:

    lack of substance:

    As is predicted, and confirmed, by evolutionary theory.

    Reference please. We all know that you are bluffing.

    Did the designer provide the large genetic variation in the original wolf population so that we could produce greyhounds, chihuahuas and pikanese?

    Yes, because of recombination. Artificial selection just brings about combinations that would never happen in the wild. Add the recombination that already occurs and badda-bing, badda-boom, a new, albeit weaker, variation of the original. The starting population would be as genetically differentiated as possible. Heterozygosity would be at its peak.

  19. 19
    Querius says:

    bornagain77,

    Neo-Darwinian theory can be used to explain anything but can reliably predict nothing (except in retrospect, which is not really predicting at all).

    Thus, a far more logical neo-neo-neo-Darwinian prediction is that a subset of the most rapidly evolving and successful organisms on the planet, bacteria, are responsible for the evolution of all their host species, including humans.

    Just as loF spreads intellectual feces here, gut flora have been extremely successful in distributing themselves by generating mobile, self-reproducing organisms. Certain strains of gut flora specialized into gametes, and the rest is, as they say, history. 😉

    -Q

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius:

    “gut flora have been extremely successful in distributing themselves by generating mobile, self-reproducing organisms”

    You are not going to believe this, (well actually you’ve been around so perhaps you may believe it), but a Darwinist actually said this to me:

    “Well, bacteria do make up most of the planet’s biomass and numbers. However, from what we understand, they are keeping humans around as an investment in interplanetary sporulation. Gotta keep your eye on the future!”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-556769

  21. 21
    Querius says:

    Yikes, bornagain77!

    Did I hit that nail on the head or what!?

    Can’t wait until my theory becomes mainstream and some of the Crusading Darwinists here will try to convince us that I was just lucky. 😉

    -Q

  22. 22
    bFast says:

    BA77, “So neo-Darwinism predicts that genetic information will be lost during supposed ‘speciation’ events???”

    Actually, that is exactly what should happen according to Darwinian theory, especially when you consider the Darwinian view of punctuated equilibrium.

    According to the theory:
    > A small community of organisms will be separated from the parent population. This small community will have some reduction in genetic diversity from the parent population.
    > This community will need to specialize. Those with genes that are not compatible with the specialization will be lost to the population (reduced genetic diversity).
    > This community will thrive in its new niche. During this thriving, it will gradually take on new mutations, eventually making it so that it cannot, or at least would not choose to, mate with the host population.

    So — when a new species is formed, it will have less genetic diversity than the parent species. Its genetic diversity will slowly grow as the millennia pass. Genetic diversity then is like breathing — during active speciation, diversity is rapidly exhaled, during the inter-species period genetic diversity is slowly inhaled.

    That is what the theory concludes.

  23. 23
    Joe says:

    That kills universal common descent unless this theory posits addition by subtraction. 😎

    “Evolutionism, the theory of addition by subtraction”

  24. 24
    bFast says:

    Joe, “That kills universal common descent unless this theory posits addition by subtraction.”

    It would kill common descent if the only component was subtraction. More accurately, it is a theory of a few plodding steps forward and a couple of quick steps back.

  25. 25
    Joe says:

    Most accurately it’s the Kansas City shuffle.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Well that may be the theory bfast, but that ain’t the facts. The facts are:

    The loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a scientific law, i.e. ‘Dollo’s Law’:

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes:
    Excerpt: “As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo’s law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible.”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/91.....l.pdf+html

    A general rule of thumb for the ‘Deterioration/Genetic Entropy’ of Dollo’s Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes
    ABSTRACT: Dollo’s law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or “lost” developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints;
    http://www.pnas.org/content/91.....l.pdf+html

    Behe extended a time-symmetric Dollo’s Law to the molecular level here:

    Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution – Michael Behe
    Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo’s law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, “The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....f_tim.html

    From Thornton’s Lab, More Strong Experimental Support for a Limit to Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe – June 23, 2014
    Excerpt: In prior comments on Thornton’s work I proposed something I dubbed a “Time-Symmetric Dollo’s Law” (TSDL).3, 8 Briefly that means, because natural selection hones a protein to its present job (not to some putative future or past function), it will be very difficult to change a protein’s current function to another one by random mutation plus natural selection.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....87061.html

    Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig weighs in here:

    Some Further Research On Dollo’s Law – Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig – November 2010
    http://www.globalsciencebooks......)1-21o.pdf

    A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html

    Axe and Gauger weigh in here on the severe limits of just changing one protein into another protein, much less changing one creature into another creature:

    “Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution’s (non) Ability to Produce New (Protein) Functions ” – video
    Quote: It turns out once you get above the number six [changes in amino acids] — and even at lower numbers actually — but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZiLsXO-dYo

    “Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – January 1, 2015
    Excerpt: The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92291.html

    Moreover, the overall fossil record reveals a ‘top-down’ pattern of ‘disparity preceding diversity’. It does not reveal the ‘bottom up’ pattern of diversity preceding disparity that Charles Darwin himself had predicted:

    There are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    Moreover, this ‘top down’ pattern, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is also found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    per physorg

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    Thus Darwinists may imagine whatever they want, but reality simply refuses to cooperate with whatever ‘bottom up’ scenario they may wish to posit!

  27. 27
    bFast says:

    BA77 “Well that may be the theory bfast, but that ain’t the facts”
    This is true. The facts are that this model should produce ring species everywhere. Of last report, I understand that there are no ring species.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    supplemental notes:

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ (Disparity preceding Diversity)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

  29. 29
    Robert Byers says:

    It wasn’t that long ago. Only since the flood since the dog would of looked different. in fact I’m confident bears are the same kind as dogs and from the pairs off the ark.
    Its simple to tame them. Lots of creatures get tamed. Thats how we got our wives(Just kidding).
    The traits are not genetic. Just habits passed on to kids. simnple.
    No dogs have innate traits even though they try to say so with those who herd or fight or point etc.

  30. 30
    Querius says:

    Joe @ 23 speculated

    That kills universal common descent unless this theory posits addition by subtraction.

    Well, the math regarding the simultaneous increase and decrease of genetic information during evolution is pretty complicated, requiring partial differential equations and then dividing the result by zero. 😉

    -Q

  31. 31
    bFast says:

    Robert Byers, “No dogs have innate traits.” Please tell me you don’t own dogs.

  32. 32
    Zachriel says:

    Some clarifications:

    bFast: > A small community of organisms will be separated from the parent population. This small community will have some reduction in genetic diversity from the parent population.

    While the splinter community will necessarily have less genetic diversity due to its small population, that doesn’t mean overall diversity has decreased, as the original population may continue unabated. Overall diversity can actually increase as the population splinters.

    As you point out, if the splinter population is successful, it will expand, and that will increase diversity within the splinter population. It’s also possible that the splinter population will take over the habitat of the parent population. As this process is geologically rapid, the fossil record may show a succession of species with no record of the small splinter population or details of its rapid evolution.

    bFast: > This community will need to specialize. Those with genes that are not compatible with the specialization will be lost to the population (reduced genetic diversity).

    It may not need to specialize, but many variations, adaptive or not, will quickly fix within the splinter due to its small population.

    Furthermore, not all speciation is likely due to punctuated equilibrium.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this claim:

    “Overall diversity can actually increase as the population splinters.”

    In that statement you are claiming that biological information can increase by unguided material processes. Small problem with your claim. The claim is based on your neo-Darwinian imagination and is not based on any substantiating empirical evidence. In fact, the empirical evidence we have says that the vast majority of ‘beneficial’ adaptations will be accompanied by a loss of genetic information/functionality:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 – video playlist
    (Behe – Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: In that statement you are claiming that biological information can increase by unguided material processes.

    Of course it can. A simple example is a bacterium dividing with mutation, which results in more genetic diversity.

  35. 35
    Joe says:

    So lack of Focus ran away as opposed to referencing the theory of evolution to support its claim.

    Typical…

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, if you truly believe, with all your heart, soul, and faith, that unguided material processes can produce non-trivial functional information/complexity, then here is your chance to pick up the ball where Matzke failed, and to falsify ID once and for all.

    Simply go into the lab and demonstrate that the flagellum, or any other comparable molecular machine, can be created by unguided material processes.

    It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_

    “The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.”
    Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.

    Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? – Michael Behe – March 10, 2015
    Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke’s 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it’s terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That’s one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution — to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94271.html

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-453291

  37. 37
    Joe says:

    A simple example is a bacterium dividing with mutation, which results in more genetic diversity.

    Biological information refers to the information in any given individual.

  38. 38
    OldArmy94 says:

    Dogs and humans have a close history because we both:

    1. Crave and seek approval
    2. Have a tremendous desire to belong to a pack
    3. Want to have a job and purpose in life

    I believe the Lord created dogs to align with the goals of Men so that we might have both their companionship and help.

  39. 39
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Zachriel, if you truly believe, with all your heart, soul, and faith, that unguided material processes can produce non-trivial functional information/complexity

    The question was diversity, not “non-trivial functional information/complexity”.

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, Au Contraire! Since organisms are stuffed to the brim with “non-trivial functional information/complexity” and material processes have never been observed creating “non-trivial functional information/complexity”, but Darwinists claim that unguided material processes can easily create “non-trivial functional information/complexity” then the question to the committed neo-Darwinist, such as yourself, will always be “Can unguided material processes create “non-trivial functional information/complexity”?

    The same ‘stick their nose in it til they learn’ technique is used on a dog until the dog finally learns not to crap in the house!

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note:

    Neo-Darwinism’s Catch-22: Before Evolving New Features, Organisms Would Be Swamped by Genetic Junk – Casey Luskin – April 10, 2015
    Excerpt: A new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Complexity presents a computational model of evolution which shows that evolving new biological structures may be deterred by an unavoidable catch-22 problem.,,,
    This is a bit complex — let’s go over it again. Darwinian evolution either (1) produces nothing new, or (2) it’s destined to produce boatloads of deadly junk. In the case of (2), the reward for trying new things is high compared to the cost of building new structures. But in order for the ratio to be high enough for complexity to increase, the cost of building new things must be negligible. Novelties proliferate, but the fraction,, that’s vestigial grows, and the organism is eventually swamped and overwhelmed by harmful vestigial features. However, if you try to avoid the problem of (2) by making the reward-to-cost ratio lower, as in (1), then nothing new ever evolves.
    The authors think real biological organisms are closer to position (1). Indeed, study in the field of systems biology increasingly finds that biological systems contain very little junk.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95121.html

  42. 42
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: Zachriel, Au Contraire!

    Let’s review the discussion.

    Zachriel: Overall diversity can actually increase as the population splinters.

    bornagain77: In that statement you are claiming that biological information can increase by unguided material processes.

    Here you are equating an increase in diversity with an increase in “biological information”. A mutation in a bacterium in a population of otherwise identical bacteria is an increase in genetic diversity by definition. Hence, per your usage, it is an increase in “biological information”.

    Then you conflated that with “non-trivial functional information/complexity”. The topic was genetic diversity, not nTFI/C or whatever the acronym of the day is for Intelligent Design advocates.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, refusal to notice the stench in your nostrils duly noted. The paper comes out next!

    Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
    Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....teria.html

    Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? – ‘The Fitness Test’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU

    Lenski’s e-coli – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

    Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations)
    Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually.
    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7

    New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows “Overwhelmingly Negative” Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution – Casey Luskin June 8, 2011
    Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn’t run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....47151.html

    The preceding experiment was interesting, for they found, after 50,000 generations of e-coli which is equivalent to about 1,000,000 years of ‘supposed’ human evolution, only 5 ‘beneficial’ mutations. Moreover, these 5 ‘beneficial’ mutations were found to negatively interfere with each other when they were combined in the ancestral population. Needless to say, this is far, far short of the functional complexity we find in life that neo-Darwinism is required to explain the origination of.

    Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute’s Ann Gauger – podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper
    Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger’s paper, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,”.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....4_13-07_00

    Scientists Discover What Makes The Same Type Of Cells Different – Oct. 2009
    Excerpt: Until now, cell variability was simply called “noise”, implying statistical random distribution. However, the results of the study now show that the different reactions are not random, but that certain causes (environmental clues) lead to predictable distribution patterns,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....204217.htm

  44. 44
    Querius says:

    Thanks once again, bornagain77, for your interesting references. I listened with interest to the interview with James Valentine as he described his “top down” theory of evolution, which focused on the early proliferation of types of cells that made the Cambrian explosion possible. I thought that Dr. Valentine is one of those rare individuals who follows the evidence without massaging or force-fitting.

    Still, Dr.Valentine accepts without question the magical mechanism of rapid evolutionary change. It would have been interesting to ask him about the evolution of heritability–the amazing capacity to evolve the ability to evolve!

    Novelties proliferate, but the fraction,, that’s vestigial grows, and the organism is eventually swamped and overwhelmed by harmful vestigial features.

    It’s my understanding that Darwinists have now thrown “vestigial organs” under the bus, and that they are considered to be both functional and evolving into something else, no different than anything else. The organs that is. 😉

    Similarly, I’d also expect Darwinists to jettison junk DNA at some point, probably redefining it out of existence.

    -Q

  45. 45
    Robert Byers says:

    bfast
    i don’t but around them in my life.
    Are you saying they do have innate traits beyond common creature ones.??

  46. 46
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: refusal to notice

    Our statement was “Overall diversity can actually increase as the population splinters.” Posting lots of irrelevant links doesn’t constitute an argument.

  47. 47
    Joe says:

    Zachriel is obtuse if it thinks that an increase in mere diversity helps it.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, only in the Darwinian fairyland that you live in is empirical evidence considered irrelevant. In the real world of science empirical evidence trumps imagination every time. Which is exactly the opposite as you apparently think science works!

  49. 49
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77,

    But it’s a pretty fairyland filled with pretty and magical things, as long as you don’t eat the fruit. 😉

    -Q

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    bornagain77: only in the Darwinian fairyland that you live in is empirical evidence considered irrelevant.

    Evidence is always relevant, but your linkfest doesn’t address the claim.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, diversity from a parent species is NOT empirical evidence for microbes to man evolution. In fact, as I already mentioned in this thread at post 26, disparity preceding diversity in the fossil record is evidence against Darwinian evolution.
    i.e. The overall fossil record reveals a ‘top-down’ pattern of ‘disparity preceding diversity’. It does not reveal the ‘bottom up’ pattern of diversity preceding disparity that Charles Darwin himself had predicted:

    There are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    Moreover, this ‘top down’ pattern, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is also found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    per physorg

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    Supplemental notes:

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

    Timeline graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ (Disparity preceding Diversity)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

    Stephen Meyer – 4 fatal flaws with macro-evolution – interview
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/stephen-meyer-4-fatal-flaws/id402803400?i=321212376&mt=2

Leave a Reply