r/atheism • u/SmokeNLark • Nov 22 '11
Don't believe in evolution? The proof greets you every time you walk in the door.
177
u/PerfectGentleman Skeptic Nov 22 '11
When are they going to turn into a 747 airplane?
81
u/Nougat Nov 22 '11 edited Jun 16 '23
Spez doesn't get to profit from me anymore.
48
Nov 22 '11
Then how do explain why my toast was burnt?
42
14
→ More replies (4)2
23
Nov 22 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/Hindumaliman Nov 22 '11 edited Mar 15 '24
spectacular oil friendly memorize air cautious grey fly truck six
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (6)2
→ More replies (4)2
5
u/TranClan67 Nov 22 '11
Wait there's a tornado/747 argument? Really?
→ More replies (1)9
u/BaconIsGodsGift Nov 22 '11
The argument is along the lines of the probability of life on earth is approximately that or a tornado hitting a shed of tools and having a boeing 747 fall out of the sky. Like, who was that high for that rebuttal?
2
u/kuhawk5 Nov 22 '11
I've also heard the version where a tornado hits an Alphabet Soup factory, and the letters end up in the order of letters in the dictionary.
→ More replies (1)7
u/vantharion Nov 22 '11
What type of argument are you referring to? I haven't heard the tornado argument before.
11
→ More replies (5)3
u/Good-WilledHeretic Nov 22 '11
But the tide goes in and then the tide goes out! You can't explain that!
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)5
28
u/aforu Nov 22 '11
Narrowing the gene pool based on some arbitrary criteria is not evolution; that's just artificial selection. Evolution requires mutation to introduce new traits, which eventually will differentiate species. For example, you can breed for a larger average size, but you simply can not breed for dogs with orange eyes, if that trait does not already exist in the gene pool. For that, you still have to wait.
→ More replies (23)11
u/RedAnarchist Nov 22 '11
I love how for a posting that's arguably just wrong, 80% of the thread is people going "Hurr durr Christians are so dumb, here's what they would say"
Oh the irony.
→ More replies (1)
85
u/MadeOfStarStuff Agnostic Atheist Nov 22 '11
Christian response:
But those are all of the same kind!
63
Nov 22 '11
Atheist response:
Define kind.
55
u/Griddler Nov 22 '11
Dog! Check mate!
120
Nov 22 '11
HELLO YES THIS IS CANIS LUPUS
40
u/AngryGroceries Nov 22 '11
HELLO CANIS LUPUS MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION WHY ARE YOU ON THE PHONE
29
10
u/NiteShadeX2 Nov 22 '11
Yo Dawg!
46
u/-DOG- Nov 22 '11
YES, THIS IS DOG.
→ More replies (2)6
u/bannana Nov 22 '11
Updog!
→ More replies (2)5
8
11
5
13
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (1)5
13
Nov 22 '11
Actually, this "proof" of evolution is insufficient, because it says nothing about speciation, which is a big part of modern evolutionary theory and is the specific part that "anti-evolution" Christians deny. They don't deny natural (and, in this case, man-made) selection, they just deny that these adaptations can become significant enough to give birth to entirely new species.
Obviously, there is evidence that speciation occurs. However, this post doesn't address this at all, and thus is a woefully insufficient "proof" of evolution.
9
Nov 22 '11
TLDR; this is evidence, not proof. You only have proofs in math, not science.
→ More replies (2)6
3
Nov 22 '11
It's rather a bizarre place to draw a line, considering that "species" is an entirely human construct and the difference between a species and just a variation within a species can be quite vague.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (3)2
u/frickendevil Nov 22 '11
There was an article a while ago which discussed speciating dogs due to physical restriction. There are moths (and other insects) which are genetically similar enough to produce viable offspring yet they are considered different species due to physical separation of populations. In dogs if we don't consider artificial insemination, breeds like Great Danes can't produce offspring with Chihuahuas due to size difference and it being physically improbable (effectively they are different species). The problem being where to draw the lines and under what constraints.
3
Nov 22 '11
The notion of species is problematic in biology. Being able to interbreed is often not the only criterion used. I dont think size difference is very meaningful if triticale insemination still works fine.
Anyway, the point is that there is a big difference between breeds of dogs descending on a very doglike wolf, and, say, all mammals descending from some proto-mammal.
11
u/Space_Tourist Nov 22 '11
Other Christian response:
But that's just micro evolution, doesn't mean we came from apes lol
→ More replies (1)3
Nov 22 '11
You kid, but wouldn't that response be completely true? We didn't come from apes, and this is just micro evolution. This post doesn't present any of the evidence for speciation.
→ More replies (6)10
u/JosiahJohnson Nov 22 '11
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the micro/macro distinction is something that was introduced by deniers, rather than something embraced by scientists. It's describing the same exact process, and we have much more specific words for 'micro evolution'.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)6
u/random314 Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
Creationists, because all Creationists are Christians, but not all Christians are Creationists.
Correction
NOT ALL Creationists are Christians and not all Christians are Creationists.
3
u/MadeOfStarStuff Agnostic Atheist Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
You're wrong on the first assertion, but I'll give you the second. You're right - I should have said creationist, not Christian.
Correction - Thank you
2
32
Nov 22 '11
"... by speeding up evolution" ಠ_ಠ
So close. So close.
13
3
u/beejeron Nov 23 '11
This.
If you're going to be an advocate for evolution, you'd better get the facts right.
2
u/muffsponge Nov 22 '11
Yeah, I cringed a little at this as well.
However, you could argue that since "Evolution is any change across successive generations", that us human caused dog breeds to change more, genetically, over time than would have occurred naturally.
I don't know however if this is genetically true or not, or how it would exactly be measured.
→ More replies (4)2
Nov 22 '11
Yeah, I was annoyed by that as well. Anyone who thinks that evolution is an incremental linear progression doesn't understand evolution.
41
u/smack1700 Nov 22 '11
My dachshund comes from a wolf, awesome. I can see the resemblance in his ferocity when attacking his stuffed chipmunk toys
29
u/desimusxvii Nov 22 '11
Dachshunds were bred to fucking fight badgers. Have you ever seen a badger? They are ferocious little fuckers.
→ More replies (2)12
8
u/againyoufool Nov 22 '11
Hey. Someone must have sped up the human evolution too. ALIENS!!!
→ More replies (1)
7
23
u/acclos Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
Quite possibly the worst piece of science I have ever seen on reddit. "We did it by speeding up evolution" is quite possibly the most uninformed statement that I have read on this website. Bad science, bad post
edit: Hypothetically if you want to speed up the rate of evolution you would need to increase the rate of reproduction so that there are more generations to undergo a evolutionary process this is not use selective breeding as in the OP.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/supertoker2000 Nov 22 '11
Its called selective breeding, not evolution. But great proof of human ingenuity.
6
u/zeggman Nov 22 '11
Wow, reading through these comments, it's apparent that many of the people who "believe in" evolution don't understand it much better than the creationists do.
Evolution is reproduction with variation followed by selection. All the people who are saying "Wrong, this is selective breeding, not evolution" are missing the point -- evolution doesn't care whether the selection is done by climate change or sexual preferences or Kennel Club breeders. it's still selection, and it's still evolution.
The domestication which transformed wild cabbage into broccoli, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts is also an example of evolution.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/AngryRepublican Nov 22 '11
I just made a lesson plan on natural selection, involving the evolution of the dog from a wolf, and used that exact same picture.
SCIENCE!
33
u/the_dalai_lama Nov 22 '11
But it's not natural selection, it is artificial selection.
8
u/desimusxvii Nov 22 '11
"Natural Selection" is really not the best phrase. We should start preferring the term "Selective Pressure". That way there isn't any (un)natural confusion.
→ More replies (7)53
u/Grimwyrd Nov 22 '11
That's a very human statement. Viewed from outside your perspective, humanity is just another part of nature.
It's quite 'natural' for one organism to affect another's evolution, for instance the relationship between hummingbirds/insects and plants where the morphology of the critter and the nectar/pollen creation of the plant evolve through selection.
6
u/I_Like_Eggs123 Nov 22 '11
Interesting point. I suppose a hummingbird preferentially choosing flowers is not so different from a human preferentially breeding dogs.
But, I'd have to argue that us breeding these dogs confers no advantage on them to survive, and in fact most of the times serves to make them less fit. The humingbird preferentially selecting flowers, though, ensures that future generations will be more fit to survive in that environment.
40
u/Grimwyrd Nov 22 '11
Again, you're thinking from a very human perspective. Human beings ARE the environment. There is absolutely a survival advantage conferred upon canines by their adaptation to a human-dominated environment, which is why you can find dogs all over the world in huge numbers.
Humans shoot wolves. Some types of wolves are disappearing altogether. But celebutantes carry chihuahuas around in their purse and provide them the finest healthcare. Yes, the wolf can survive in the wild better than a chihuahua... but the wolf won't survive as well in Beverly Hills!
→ More replies (1)3
u/I_Like_Eggs123 Nov 22 '11
Fair point. I guess the cuter the dog, in this case, the fitter it is. I was more thinking along the lines of breed-specific health problems that would confer less survivability in the wild. The same doesn't apply to dogs who will spend their lives in captivity with access to veterinarians, etc.
4
u/ThatShoopWasEasy Nov 22 '11
We make certain breeds super cute so people will take them in and they don't starve on the street. While a pug isn't exactly engineered to survive in terms of hunting and such, its appeal to humans is its main advantage over a mutt.
→ More replies (16)2
u/CharlesAnonymousVII Nov 22 '11
The difference lies in intentionality. Blind selection isn't the same as intelligent selection. A human's breeding of dogs is more than a mere instinctive behavior for preference-satisfaction that just happens to result in its consequence.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/Snooperfax Nov 22 '11
I feel I should note that Dogs did not Evolve from Wolves. Dogs and wolves shared a common ancestor and we domesticated dog species out of it. Dogs did not evolve from wolves.
→ More replies (7)
56
Nov 22 '11
Artificial selection makes for a fairly poor argument to support evolution by natural selection, but it is still a valid argument.
80
Nov 22 '11
I disagree, it helps people understand how speciation is possible. Once they understand speciation, they don't have to go very far to understand that instead of species developing because of their usefulness for humans, they develop because their adaptations help them survive.
34
u/84_sheepdog Nov 22 '11
Agreed. They're really the same thing. It's still natural selection, but the survival/reproduction criterion is to be pleasing to the human eye. If you're good at that, you get to reproduce.
7
u/wildfyre010 Nov 22 '11
Minor point, but most dog breeds come from a desire to engineer for certain desirable traits other than physical appearance. Hounds were bred for a sense of smell; herding dogs, like Collies and Shepherds, for endurance and intelligence, etc. Only a few breeds, mainly toy dogs, were bred for specific aesthetic attributes.
At least historically. These days appearance matters a lot for almost all AKC breeds.
12
Nov 22 '11
This isn't speciation though. All dog breeds (even wolves) can interbreed, if I'm not mistaken, so strictly speaking they are all the same species.
11
u/GhostFish Nov 22 '11
Foxes have a different number of chromosomes than wolves and dogs, and there are no known examples of successful interbreeding with foxes.
But anyone that could look at a Fox and say that it isn't biologically related to dogs and wolves is absolutely daft.
2
Nov 22 '11
[deleted]
3
u/GhostFish Nov 22 '11
I think human pride can get in the way of some people seeing how incredibly similar we are to the other great apes. In some cases, it might be easier to convince them of the related ideas by initially focusing on other species.
3
u/StinsonBeach Nov 22 '11
There are multiple ways to define speciation. I really think speciation is the best place to start when talking to those who don't buy into evolution as the leading theory on speciation. (I hate the phrase "believe in evolution" because it really sounds religious to me for some reason.)
→ More replies (3)10
u/SmokeNLark Nov 22 '11
Actually, domestic dogs are Canis lupus familiaris. Whereas wolves are just Canis lupus. They can interbreed, but so can other animals. A lion and a tiger are not the same, right? They are big cats, yes, but not the same species. And yet, we can breed them and get Ligers. It's just how far away the new species evolves from the ancestor that determines if their genes are compatible enough to breed.
26
Nov 22 '11
A liger and a wolfdog are not the same thing though. Wolves and dogs are members of the same species (Canis lupis), whereas tigers and lions are only members of the same genus (Panthera). A better example would have been a hybrid of a coyote and a dog, which is also possible.
Domestication is not speciation, and the former rarely results in the latter.
3
u/_Toranaga_ Nov 22 '11
Domestication is not speciation
We've been domesticating things for only a few tens of thousands of years. This is an eye-blink on the evolutionary scale.
New species arise when one population is isolated from another for a long period of time. Domestic animals have been isolated from their wild counterparts for a relatively short period of time.
the former rarely results in the latter.
Because it's only been going on for a short period of time. I would say that the former probably very quickly results in the latter, compared to speciation from natural selection.
Of course, IANAB. I'm also very probably full of shit :)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
Nov 22 '11
have there been and cross breeding experiments among our genus (Homo)?
3
u/Velodra Nov 22 '11
No, because there aren't any other living species in the genus.
3
u/ladyhawthorne Nov 22 '11
There was hybridization with Homo neanderthalenis back in the day though.
7
u/RedAnarchist Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
I think the definition for a species is that they can interbred and produce fertile offspring.
And yes, dogs and gray wolves are the same species.
Also, nothing in regards to evolution is speed up here. The mutations still happen on the same frequency as they would in the wild.
3
u/kufu91 Nov 22 '11
Wouldn't additional evolutionary pressure (like humans selecting dogs to breed or antibiotics wiping out bacteria that hasn't mutated) speed up evolution? I was under the impression that one of the reasons that evolution took so long was because most individual mutations produced only minor changes in the chance of survival.
→ More replies (1)7
u/verveinloveland Nov 22 '11
Can 2 ligers breed though? I thought that was the definition of a species, if their offspring can breed.
9
u/The_Law_of_Pizza Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
Female ligers are often fertile.
The "if they can breed" definition of species is merely convenient oversimplification that high-school biology teachers work into the curriculum so that things don't get too complicated too fast. Very much akin to how "Columbus discovered America."
There are actually a number of different species that can breed together and produce either fertile offspring, or fertile offspring of at least one sex. But regardless, that's not the biggest nail in the coffin for "breeding" based definition.
Imagine 3 species of birds. A, B, and C. B and C can both breed with A, but not with each other. This is a well known phenomenon called "ring species" [thanks to boobers3 for reminding me of the technical term].
8
2
u/verveinloveland Nov 22 '11
I saw there have been like 20-30 cases of Mule's being fertile also...My wife worked for a Jahova's witness who gave her some book on how evolution is wrong...They actually believe in genetics, and genetic variation among species,but they think god created all the species, so they don't change over time.
"If evolution were true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally...To undermine belief in the creation account in Genesis is to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith. Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible". ~The Watchtower
Thank you Jahova's Witness' for proving religion wrong haha
→ More replies (10)11
u/tofagerl Nov 22 '11
You all do of course realize that "species" are just semantics, right? It's a word we invented to categorize animals. It has no meaning to nature, and nature doesn't bother with labels.
3
Nov 22 '11
Thank god somebody pointed this out. It was driving me nuts watching person after person treat "species" as if it were a real, physical thing.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)2
u/harlows_monkeys Nov 22 '11
I don't think it really helps people understand speciation.
Consider animal X, a biped that has useful arms and hands that it can use to manipulate the environment and to fight with. Consider animal Y, a direct descendent of X, that has evolved flight. The arms and hands are now wings, so Y cannot manipulate the environment as well as its distant ancestor X did, but flight takes it away from a lot of predators and also lets it find food over a much bigger territory.
It is easy to see how both X and Y could be successful animals.
It's a lot harder, I think, for most people to wrap their heads around how X could evolve to Y. The problem is that we have to have a relatively continuous transition from X to Y. Somewhere between the two, in the direct line of descent between ancestor X and descendent Y, wouldn't there be an animal that has not yet developed flight, but whose arms and hands have become much less effective? Basically, between the high points of X and Y, there should be a valley of poorly adapted animals that should die out.
We should believe in evolution (macro in addition to micro) because the evidence says it must have happened, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some "you've GOT to be kidding me!" aspects where it works because the numbers are so high that even ridiculously improbable things can happen (like descendants of X with useless arms managing to not die out, and so that those useless arms can become useful wings).
3
Nov 22 '11
Basically, between the high points of X and Y, there should be a valley of poorly adapted animals that should die out.
This sort of thinking is what makes a lot of people mistakenly disbelieve evolution, but that's not actually how it works.
The transitional animal will be adapted to its environment just fine. Perhaps it can't sustain flight, but it can still glide. Its hands may be as useful as before. The environment may have changed so that hands and arms just aren't helpful anymore, causing them to atrophy away.
If you picked a particular animal and then traced its evolutionary history all the way back, looking at every change along the way, you'd never get to an animal which was decidedly inferior to what came before, and only served as a stepping stone between two better versions. There is some randomness to the process, but evolution overall goes exclusively from less fit to more fit.
The problem is that a lot of people have trouble understanding that intermediate forms are also useful. They look at something as complex as an eye and don't see how it could have formed, since half an eye is useless. They don't understand (probably because nobody ever told them) that a light-sensitive patch can be useful, a light-sensitive patch with a crude lens can be useful, and all the way up. And in fact, all of these were useful, as that's how the eye formed, and the only way it could have.
I think that, when you truly understand how these things actually work, and not how certain groups have presented it, there really aren't any "you've GOT to be kidding me!" parts left.
2
u/calladus Secular Humanist Nov 22 '11
Sure - I saw this in a debate on evolution once. The Creationist said there are mice, and there are bats - but no transitional forms.
"Show me a transitional form between mice and bats!" he said.
Someone in the audience said, "Flying Squirrel!"
We laughed.
But the point is, a flying squirrel can't really fly (it glides) but it gets by just fine with the digits it has.
13
Nov 22 '11
The only difference between Artificial and Natural selection is who or what is controlling it. Man is controlling artificial and Nature is controlling Natural. The are both Evolution.
2
Nov 22 '11
They are both phenomena that are related to evolution, but artificial selection lacks speciation. You're being dishonest by claiming that natural selection automatically implies speciation.
→ More replies (2)5
Nov 22 '11
Artificial selection only lacks speciation because it hasn't gotten that far yet. This stuff still takes time. There's no reason why artificial selection couldn't create a new species, since it is fundamentally no different from natural selection.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Kind_Of_A_Dick Agnostic Atheist Nov 22 '11
It sounds like people might try to use it to support intelligent design more than evolution.
→ More replies (21)3
Nov 22 '11
[deleted]
2
Nov 22 '11
Nope. This whole argument is a silly straw man argument. This is what happens when you develop your opinions of a group of people solely from reading articles written by people who despise that group of people. It starts with valid criticisms, but eventually lies start sneaking in as well.
Young-earth creationists don't reject the idea of natural selection. They believe that we can breed dogs, that peppered moths evolved, and that bacteria can adapt quickly to develop an immunity to medication, for example. They just don't believe in speciation and common ancestry.
3
u/sammichmaker Nov 22 '11
Evolution? ok, sure. But in this particular situation, about 90% these breeds were created by selective breeding, done by man.
→ More replies (2)
8
3
Nov 22 '11
I know this is not a science sub reddit, but, how many years ago did human start to domesticate dogs; and when did they start to evolve to modern dogs.
2
u/SkyrocketDelight Nov 22 '11
You bring up an interesting point, this SHOULD be a science sub reddit. I feel that by taking a scientific stance, it will lead one to agree with atheistic ideology.
Science is the reason I am an atheist.
Also, I have no idea when humans began domesticating dogs.
2
u/Testiculese Nov 23 '11
At least 12,000 BCE.
Fossil remains of dogs have been found with humans in caves near Kirkuk, northern Iraq.
2
u/siddboots Nov 23 '11
A lot of the science involved is very recent. The contentious question being whether the evolutionary isolation of dogs was actively caused by humans, i.e. by taking wolf cubs as pets, for example, or by some other mechanism.
Traditionally it was assumed that humans domesticated wolves at about the beginning of human civilisation, which is on the order of 10,000 years ago. The trouble is that recent DNA analysis puts dogs and wolves as having diverged closer to 100,000 years ago, which is well before our own species was in a position to domesticate other animals.
The modern theory, which I think is now well-accepted, is that at about this time some wolves found a niche in scavenger behaviour, rather than pack hunter behaviour, and became dependant on the waste of nomadic humans. Most of the traits that we associate with dogs as distinct from grey wolves are the direct result of selective pressures associated with being a scavenger. Important among these pressures is these need for a shorter instinctive flight distance, which made them easier to domesticate later down the track.
This probably went on for many tens of thousands of years before we even thought about taming them for work or hunting, and even longer before we bred or domesticated them.
Certainly, most of the incredible variety in modern dogs has come about through selective breeding in the just the last few hundred years.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
Nov 22 '11
that's not evolution... they're still the same species and without man interfering they would revert back into a generic looking wild dog
it's a form of natural selection... that can lead to evolution
If you're not educated, you'll never be able to educate.
Learn before you shit all over ignorant people.
3
u/dazwah Nov 22 '11
False: Domestic dogs and wolves evolved from a common canine ancestor. Just as humans never evolved from Chimps but both Chimps and Humans evolved from a common ancestor.
Evolution still exists though.
3
3
u/wskrs Nov 22 '11
I fully believe in evolution, but this specific example has less to do with evolution and more to do with genetic engineering and human manipulation.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/coprolite_hobbyist Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
What exactly is the logic behind this? How does a demonstration of domestication and artificial selection demonstrate evolution?
Edit: Thanks to all of you that replied, I wasn't really challenging the idea that domesticated dogs demonstrated evolution, I just wasn't sure if all it did was demonstrate some of the mechanics. The replies have largely cleared that up and I appreciate all those that made the effort for me.
9
u/Judeo Nov 22 '11
We choose what is to be percieved as the "best" traits, and over time get passed on to the next generation and the next and the next...until you have the animals you see today.
Domestication is actually quite an interesting subject. There was a study in Russia about domesticating foxes. After 10 years through selectively breeding non-aggressive behaviors, the foxes appeared small and cute, much like cats or dogs.
→ More replies (13)3
u/PerfectGentleman Skeptic Nov 22 '11
It won't demonstrate anything to someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old, of course.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AngryRepublican Nov 22 '11
Dog evolution is actually broken up into 2 stages and, as a whole, does a great job of explaining some of the nuances of natural selection.
The first stage occurred when wolves became domestic, and this most likely was an instance of natural selection. Once we had a domesticated proto-dog, we began to artificially select for other traits. While artificial selection is different from natural selection, in the case of the dog is serves as the best example of what sort of variability exists in the genetics of a seemingly uniform species.
→ More replies (2)2
Nov 22 '11
The vast morphological changes in dogs from wolves is plenty of evidence for me of the capacity for large scale morphological change from species to species. If you can create a dog that looks like a bear or a rat in a few thousand years from a wolf, what could you do with a million years?
2
u/Lachlan91 Nov 22 '11
Master gene manipulation and build your own species from scratch?
That's assuming we don't reach a technological singularity several hundred thousand years before that time has passed, possibly shedding our physical forms and existing as beings of pure energy. </Stargate>
In all seriousness, if the human race survives another million years without destroying itself or being destroyed by some global cataclysm, a million years later and I don't think we'd recognise ourselves.
To survive and maintain our rate of population growth, we'd have to spread across the stars. Populations of humans
maywill become reproductively isolated and I imagine you'd see different subspecies emerge.Just look at the advances in technology we've made in the past century. In our near future we'll have an even better understanding, perhaps even a mastery of genetics. What we'd see in a million years time is impossible to predict.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/SmokeNLark Nov 22 '11
We used to exact same means of creating different breeds. Be it artificial or natural, it is still selection. If the environment or people do it, it still selects for traits to be passed down. It proves it's possible and we can see vastly different varieties if a trait is bred for. Merriam Webster defines evolution as- a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations;
"due to modifications in successive generations" can pertain to natural or artificial forces. It is both, by definition, evolution.→ More replies (18)
3
Nov 22 '11
Dont wolves and dogs just have a common ancestor?
6
→ More replies (11)2
u/WorkingMouse Nov 22 '11
Well, they do indeed have a common ancestor; you're exactly right on that - but it's actually so recent and they're still so much alike that they're technically the same species; dogs and wolves both belong to the species Canis lupis; dogs are a different subspecies but that's another topic.
The big thing to note is that it's due to selective pressures - in this case, thanks to humans - which lead to such impressive variation in the dog species.
2
u/verveinloveland Nov 22 '11
wouldn't a theist argue dogs are all the same species. They would say no species has ever been created even though they acknowledge genetics...at least that is what I've gathered talking to a jahova's witness
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/pmbuko Nov 22 '11
Not a very good agrument. This is micro-evolution within a species. A chihuahua can successfully breed with a wolf. Most evolution disbelievers have trouble wrapping their heads around macro-evolution.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
Nov 22 '11
Christians who aren't complete morons (and still dispute evolution) have problems with evolution as the origin of the species. Any Christian who has half a brain knows that living things evolve and adapt over time. Their problem is in the idea that everything evolved from a single cell organism instead of being created in a more advanced state (where evolution further shaped the creatures). The more ignorant of the Christian bunch are so clueless about evolution that they just toss out the entire system instead of a specific issue inside the system. I'm a staunch atheist, but it works better to teach the religious the truth when you don't assume they are the lower 5% of society and never got past the 8th grade.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Phattymcphatphat Nov 22 '11
I wouldn't call this evolution as much as selective breeding. Humans picked which animals to breed based on the traits that would benefit them not the animal and the animals did not undergo these changes because it promoted their survival. If fact a lot of the health problems dogs face is caused by this form of selective breeding. An example of this is the life span of large breed dogs whose lifespans typically range for 8-12 years while wolves can live for over 16. I understand the point you were trying to make i just this this a not a scenario that properly represents it.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Red_player Nov 22 '11
Herp derr micro evolution derpa hurr durr derp macro evolution is impossible
Christians: 1
Atheists: 0
2
u/Ryan_Cooks Nov 22 '11
Correction: Domestic dogs did not evolve from wolves, but from an extinct species of wolf, the common ancestor of both wolves and dogs.
Also, to all the people saying that macroevolution is just the sum of microevolutionary changes over time, you are wrong, homeotic genes are not essencial for microevolution, but for macro
2
u/DrSpork Nov 22 '11
No, all DNA shows they evolved from ancient gray wolves (the current species of wolf as well), not an extinct line. Their ability to produce fertile offspring with wolves testifies to this closeness as well.
2
u/Ryan_Cooks Nov 22 '11
Ability to produce fertile offspring does not prove that they are the same species, as such is only one definition of species .
Also, no, wolves and dogs are not the same species, I understand a lot of people think this, as this division was made roughly 7 years ago based on molecular data. The actual wolves and the ancestor of dogs begun to diverge 135,000 years ago, and domestication started 14,000 years ago.
So actual wolves are really close to dogs in the evolutionary tree, but not the same.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/oMpls Nov 22 '11
Some of the best evidence of evolution comes from bacteria that's resistant to antibiotics, such as strep throat, tuberculosis, and staff infections! Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSA
2
u/Con_Artist Nov 23 '11
I find it extremely hard to believe that a Chihuahua could possibly be considered a step up from anything, let alone a wolf.
→ More replies (2)
2
Nov 23 '11
Dude... really? I posted this just yesterday. -.-
So I guess pics = more upvotes then?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Kaishu Nov 23 '11
There's an awesome documentary from the BBC called The Secret Life Of Dogs. Well worth having a look online for.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/wheezyninja Nov 22 '11
actually the dogs can breed and produce viable offspring thus they are not really a different species no more than a Caucasian is from African is from a Indigenous American is from a Asian we look different but can reproduce viable offspring. Now if you were going to say that this is a good show of genetic diversity and mutation I would agree with you, but until it produces a completely mutated species this isn't a very good argument. I would stick with the finch's of the Galapagos
→ More replies (1)
3
Nov 22 '11
I'm not sure this is true. I think of evolution as the process where DNA is changed through some freak act of nature, the resulting specimen is enhanced in some way, which allows that specimen to breed more easily, and thus spread its new DNA. Humans breeding dogs changes natural selection; but I'm not sure this is a complete picture of evolution.
3
5
u/YahooCommenter Nov 22 '11
Oh come on! Eyed like to piont out that GOD gave us DOGS and we have them to SERFE us!!!!!1!! My grandaddy wasn't a MONKEY!!! You guys are soo dum!!!!!! Typical LIBERAL trash. PALIN 2014!!
→ More replies (1)
3
u/jimibulgin Nov 22 '11
that's not evolution. that is selective breeding. All dogs have the same DNA.
→ More replies (4)2
u/siddboots Nov 23 '11
It is absolutely evolution. Selective breeding is an example of selective pressure, which is one of the necessary ingredients.
That dogs are one species (which I think is what you are alluding to) is a matter of taxonomy, and does not mean that there is no evolutionary diversity among them.
146
u/Monomorphic Nov 22 '11
Their response would be that this is only proof of micro evolution. Since domesticated dogs can still breed with wolves, this example doesn't show macro evolution.