Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Economist discovers a new species emerging

arroba Email

By hybridization, if at all. Here:

Interbreeding between animal species usually leads to offspring less vigorous than either parent—if they survive at all. But the combination of wolf, coyote and dog DNA that resulted from this reproductive necessity generated an exception. The consequence has been booming numbers of an extraordinarily fit new animal (see picture) spreading through the eastern part of North America. Some call this creature the eastern coyote. Others, though, have dubbed it the “coywolf”. Whatever name it goes by, Roland Kays of North Carolina State University, in Raleigh, reckons it now numbers in the millions.

This has been going on for thousands of years. The different groups, wolves, dogs, and coyotes, each have differing advantages that usually keeps them distinct, but not always.

The mixing of genes that has created the coywolf has been more rapid, pervasive and transformational than many once thought.

Whether the coywolf actually has evolved into a distinct species is debated. Jonathan Way, who works in Massachusetts for the National Park Service, claims in a forthcoming paper that it has. He thinks its morphological and genetic divergence from its ancestors is sufficient to qualify. But many disagree. One common definition of a species is a population that will not interbreed with outsiders. Since coywolves continue to mate with dogs and wolves, the argument goes, they are therefore not a species. But, given the way coywolves came into existence, that definition would mean wolves and coyotes should not be considered different species either—and that does not even begin to address whether domestic dogs are a species, or just an aberrant form of wolf. More.

Domestic dogs are not a species; they are an aberrant form of wolf that learned to live with humans as the lowest members of a pack order, in exchange for food and protection. Other, probably bigger and fiercer, wolves preferred their independence.

The problem is, once this is admitted, lots of Darwinblather becomes obsolete.

See more on hybridization as a form of evolution at: Life continues to ignore what evolution experts say

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Creationism and evolutionists should not agrre that there are species. its an error of classification. whatever mechanism(s) bring biological change IT HAS no relevance to the classification of humans in picking a place along that bio spectrum and calling it species. People look different but are not called species. Yet this bio change origin surely is the same as the rest of nature. Nature does not recognize species. It just changes popuklations relative to previous populations they came from. Breeding ability is only a coincidence of how much change was done. No species please we are modern biologists. case in point. The coyete/wold/dog creatures thing is case in point. They are a new population with maybe new traits relative to the previous population they came from. Thats all they are or people are or anything. Robert Byers
Lots of evidence Dave.
That's not terribly specific. daveS
Lots of evidence Dave. Arguing a coywolf is the result of unguided purposeless evolution is evidence free though. Although a coywolf might be an inadvertent design, it is a man design nonetheless. How about these designs: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/mar/10/kathyrn-fleming-bizarre-designer-animals-art-project ppolish
It’s guided adaptation Dave. It’s purposeful adaptation Dave.
Is there any evidence for that? daveS
It's guided adaptation Dave. It's purposeful adaptation Dave. Blind Watchmaker is easy prey for a coywolf. Grrr. ppolish
Domestic dogs are not a species; they are an aberrant form of wolf that learned to live with humans as the lowest members of a pack order, in exchange for food and protection. Other, probably bigger and fiercer, wolves preferred their independence. Theproblem is, once this is admitted, lots of Darwinblather becomesobsolete.
It does? I'm not clear on how this story has any anti-"Darwinist" implications. Anyway, I do find it interesting that these coywolves have happened upon a combination of traits that apparently make them quite successful even in regions with high (human) population density. daveS
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/interview-with-wolf-ekkehard-lonnig/ 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.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_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/2014/10/the_dog_delusio090751.html Greater than the sum of its parts - Oct. 31, 2015 The DNA from both wolves and dogs (the latter mostly large breeds, like Doberman Pinschers and German Shepherds), brings big advantages, says Dr Kays. At 25kg or more, many coywolves have twice the heft of purebred coyotes. With larger jaws, more muscle and faster legs, individual coywolves can take down small deer. A pack of them can even kill a moose. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21677188-it-rare-new-animal-species-emerge-front-scientists-eyes What Darwin Didnt Know - video (21 minute mark,,, jackals, wolves, and huskies interbred by Russians to be drug sniffing dogs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1fdJJCQOPk Seminar by Dr. Robert Carter 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/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004016
As well, 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 The Bizarre Truth About Purebred Dogs (and Why Mutts Are Better) - Adam Ruins Everything - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo&t=2m42s

Leave a Reply