Why are the two obvious examples of evolution, mankind and dogs,

[heidler1]

not sufficient to put it all out of reach of religious criticism? Every color, shape or size of man are of the same species must be true or men who breed a different race would have sterile offspring. Same with all dogs no matter the color, shape or size. Many other animals are similar like cows and sheep, but we have all witnessed this with humans and dogs. Humans have been selectively bred. Dogs have been selectively bred. the only difference is normal evolution is driven by environmental advantage.

[bowens43]

1. Fundamentalism.

The single greatest threat not only to science but to our Constitution and our Freedom.

[tocqueville]

2. diversity isn't a proof in itself

there are plenty of other proofs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

[BlueEyedSon]

3. existience of variety is not proof of change or natural selection

arguably the many breeds of dogs support the ID peeps, in that the creation of the various breeds was by design, by an intelligent outside force (not nature)

[endarkenment]

4. Ah heck you can demonstrate the FACT of evolution

in a lab with fruit flys. Only the pure fundaloons deny the fact of evolution. The nefarious Idiotic Designers go at it from the angle of attacking Darwin's marvel, his theory to explain the facts of evolution, by proposing their concept of Idiotic Design, a theory without any particular facts to back it up, a theory that fails to explain much of anything, by claiming that Darwin's Theory can't explain some complicated little bit of some life form, a claim that is by the way both logically false and devoid of evidence, and that this alleged failure of Darwin's Theory proves the existence of an Idiotic Designer. In other words it is utter bullshit deliberately constructed to confuse rather than explain.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. viruses and bacteria are doing it all the time. those are good examples

[Faygo Kid]

6. Dogs aren't people?? Don't tell mine.

They will get big headed. Your point is well taken, though.

[chaumont58]

8. I'll tell you what: A dog is nature's best product

There is no second.

[smirkymonkey]

9. Hear, hear! I'll second that.

If only they ruled the world! They couldn't do much worse.

[Strong Atheist]

18. Nah, that's cats ...

:evilgrin:

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. I like to ask anti-evolutionary Talibangelicals...

"So tell me: When did wild poodles roam the earth? Wild chihuahuas? When did God create the St. Bernard and the shar-pei?"

[Peregrine]

11. Whales, horses, and cats are better examples

We actually know more about the ancestory of these animals than we do about humans.

Also the fact the dog breeds exist is an example of artificial selection not natural selection and actually supports creationist ideas. You see they are still of the same "kind", dog.

[greiner3]

10. Sorry to yank my own chain, however,

I read 'On the Origin of Species' and while dogs were not mentioned as such, pigeons were. 150 years ago, English gentlemen raised pigeons for fun, profit and sport. Darwin was captivated by the vast array of colors, feathering and other traits that these pigeons exhibited. He was amazed that in so short a period all the many breeds of pigeons were attainable. Dogs are the same. DNA analysis shows that all dogs came from the wolf. They diverged about 10,000 years ago. As for humans, DNA analysis shows that the most far-flung groups, when taken together, are genetically closer than 20 chimps in the same group. There is no such thing as 'race' or any such grouping when it comes to humans. We're stuck with each other. Unfortunately this goes for THE CHIMP, although I'd check HIS DNA before I go too far. :rofl:

[arwalden]

12. Excellent Examples...

... thanks! I'll try to use those examples the next time I talk with one of my Adam-and-Eve-believing relatives. (Would you be surprised if I also told ou that they were Noah's-ark-believing and parting-the-Red-Sea-believing?)

[okasha]

13. Intra-species variation isn't proof of evolution.

Evolution requires that one species give rise to another. The fossil record for horse species is excellent, with a clear sequence from Eohippus to Equus. George Schaller's famous sequence for African Suidae is another. In fact, the pig sequence is so good that it's used to date other fossils found in association.

[trotsky]

14. Evolution requires no such thing.

Evolution, quite simply, is defined as the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Breeding fits that definition.

You're buying into the creationist "micro-" vs. "macro-" evolution debate.

[okasha]

15. No, I'm buying into what my (evolutionist) bio profs taught me.

This fits into the definition of normal selection/variation:

Evolution, quite simply, is defined as the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Selection (or allele variation), albeit not natural selection, produces the difference between Chihuahuas and rottweilers. In Canis lupus and canis vulgaris, however, allele variation has proceded to the point of producing two groups of animals with vastly different genetically determined behaviors and no habit of regular interbreeding. Chihuahas and German shepherds, despite appearances, are more similar to each other than either is to wolves. Wolves, for instance, form stable pair bonds, and males parent the young. Dogs do not. Coyotes, on the other hand, are similar enough to wolves that wolves will treat a stray coyote as a territorial rival. A stray Chihuahua, on the other hand, or a stray shepherd, is lunch.

Selection is the mechanism. Evolution is the effect.

Edited to add: as I understand the fundamentalist/creationist position, it is that evolution is unproven because it cannot be seen to occur within observable time frames. As has been pointed out, that's nonsense because micro-organisms do it all the time. Even viruses do it, with just RNA to work with.

[trotsky]

16. Okey dokey, but my profs taught otherwise.

Because what you're insisting evolution is about, is just the definition I gave, extended over time.

Change in allele frequency in a population over time. That's all.

[heidler1]

17. After reading your view of Evolution versus okasha I spent considerable

time reading about the issue and it seemed to be somewhat avoided. My impression was that over time humans gradual allele could cause specie change because the rate of allele change is a factual reality and it is used to track migration patterns. I did not read this, but because of modern human travel I'd guess that it is not likely to happen with humans. I'm not sure that the variation in Finch's beaks that helped convince Darwin that evolution happened proved specie difference.

[heidler1]

19. This article calls selective breeding Evolution.

http://www.chains-of-reason.org/chains/evolution-by-natural-selection/introduction.htm

A direct analogy of evolution by natural selection is evolution by artificial selection, or selective breeding. Such selection is of variations that happen, for various reasons, to appeal to people, such as the appearance and fragrance of a rose, or the physical and behavioural characteristics of a dog. But whereas this kind of accelerated evolution, which produced in only a few thousand years both the Chihuahua and the Saint Bernard from the wolf, involves foresight and conscious choice, the process of natural selection is completely 'blind' and automatic.

This simple process explains how the appearance of design in the natural world was due not to the efforts of a conscious designer, but instead arose from a completely mindless process.