neat link to the Smithsonian and it does a swell job of sorts. It still falls on the evidences and more lands on the hypothesis (heck it even outright admits it) that dogs evolved diverged from wolves. which they don't really know for certain. Below is a much better peer reviewed study that usually opens the eyes of the dog-from-wolf campers. it look more like the dog and the wolf had some common ancestor that we have yet to find any fossil record of yet... approx 20k years ago....(which agrees with one of the studies in the Smithsonian link and also debunks some of the agrarian theories. :
“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”
But who really knows for certain now... maybe it was some ancient wolf...or ancient wolf-dog.... just need a bit of faith ..until that precious missing link can be dug up and sequenced to seal one's belief.
Right, we do not know for certain. This links back to science is never proved. However, the evidence overwhelming points to dogs evolving from wolves.
The paper you linked to agrees with me by the way:
"Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade."
That is, dogs from the species wolf, but from a subspecies that is now extinct.
you should try to at least make an honest attempt to understanding Intelligent Design.... it uses actual and factual science to prove design and infer intelligence as we have no mechanism that can code things from random blindness like evolution requires.
Really? The only arguments I have ever seen - and I have been looking for over ten years - are:
- evolution supposedly cannot explain X, therefore ID is true
- it looks like it is designed, therefore it is
But okay, I will try to make an honest attempt to understanding Intelligent Design. Point me to the actual and factual science that proves design.
In fact, it is kind of odd you have no link here. Almost like it is just a fantasy really. But I wil give ou the benefit of the doubt, and await your list of links with anticipation.
you should try to at least make an honest attempt to understanding Intelligent Design.... it uses actual and factual science to prove design and infer intelligence as we have no mechanism that can code things from random blindness like evolution requires.
Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes. I have never seen it, and I do not believe one has ever been proposed.
I think this is just a dishonest ploy creationists use to create the
illusion that their claims are valid, and I am afraid you have fallen for it. But again, go ahead and prove me wrong, if you can.
I don't think you understand that being a Christian means belief in God.(or a god in some sad cases)... being a materialist means one believes in purely material reasons for creation....and no God.
Believing in God does not mean you cannot also believe evolution is true. Most Christians believe evolution, yes, even though they also believe in God.
Like you, they ignore the bits of the Bible that say the earth is flat. Like you they ignore the bits that say it is covered in a solid dome. Like you they ignore the bits of the Bible that says the sun goes round the earth. But they also ignore the bit that says God created each "kind" individually over a few days.
LOL I love your fish eyelashes there... they look wonderful on you (but not so much on fish)
You really need to understand what vertebrate eyes are, and how they different from cephalopod eyes if you are going to be able to discuss this without looking like an idiot.
Fish and humans have the same type of eye - the vertebrate eye - in which the light-sensitive cells are connected to the optic cell by nerves that run in front of them, and then head through the blind spot.
All vertebrates have eyes that are similar in basic construction plan. This eye must have evolved very early in chordate evolution and then got modified subsequently to increase its efficiency in higher vertebrates. Vertebrate eye is a hollow ball made of three layers, outermost of which is...
www.iaszoology.com
This is basic biology that you can look at in any basic biology textbook. I am sorry to say it, but your comment here only serves to make you look ignorant, and undermines your credibility. I strongly suspect at this point that this is a choice on your behalf. Either you prefer not to understand because you are afraid you might be wrong, or you already do understand, and you are choosing to make these facile comments to avoid confronting reality.
Either way it reflects badly on your position.
If you have the truth on your side, you should be happy to learn more and more, confident that each and every fact will make your position stronger. That is how it is for me, anyway,
well you tried.. but failed again.
I failed because you have this impenetrable wall of ignorance to hide behind.
The reality is that humans and fish both have the same type of eyes. Everyone with a clue about biology knows this to be true.
Creationism is founded on the fact that most creationists do not have a clue about biology, so the creationist leaders can spin them any nonsense they want. And furthermore, they can be pretty sure those creationists will not both to actually look at a textbook or click a link, because most creationists do not want to know the truth.
Be honest, how many of the articles I have linked to have you actually bothered to read?
Heck, even the link on dogs and wolves that you found supported my position, so it is doubtful you even bothered to read your own link!
and now you are started to grasp what intelligent design is all about ... for you to even state what you stated about dolphins you seemed to have abandoned blind random evolution.. this is a great step for you.... and one I hope you can keep exploring
I have no idea what you are talking about. The point about dolphins was that they are far better explained by evolution than by design. In fact, all I see here is you evading the questions.
I will ask them again, really just to emphasise that you have no answer.
Why are dolphins so much closer genetically to people than they are to fish?
And why are chimps so much closer genetically to people than they are to gorillas?
There is no creationist answer. Your creationist leaders just hope you are too ignorant and afraid of reality to ask these questions yourself. Sadly, they are generally right about that. The creationist masses are incredibly good at ignoring what they do not like. They can see the supposed flaws in evolution, but lack the ability to wonder if creationism has those same flaws.
You object to evolution because it has no mechanism "
that can code things from random blindness like evolution requires", but ignore the fact that ID lacks any mechanism at all.
You object to evolution because "
you have yet to repeat evolution science", but ignore the fact that ID lacks any repeatable experiments at all.
Why not apply these objections to creationism? Because creationism is, ultimately, based on wanting it to be true, and not on reality.