Evolution or creation of breeds

You are asking really deep questions for this particular site and it's members me included...what happened to "do you think NEO's are crap" or "who likes fuzzy bear huggie Ovcharka's over short haired kissable Ovcharka's"...you are too smart for us Gary.

:lol: :lol: Redneksamurai your have re stored my faith that there is other people on this site who don't take life to seriously :wink:

gsicard too much sand for my truck lol [blockquote]The idea that inheritance is not just about which genes you inherit but whether these are switched on or off is a whole new frontier in biology. It raises questions with huge implications, and means the search will be on to find what sort of environmental effects can affect these switches.[/blockquote] http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml

I think most people accept micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is another story. The whole sale change of a species as far as I know is unproven, since there is no transistional fossil records that I am aware of to date. In talking about dogs they are still dogs whether it is a poodle or a Caucasian. So I would agree with Dr. Behe [quote] Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level [1]. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and nonrandom mating. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance. Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process. [/quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution [quote] In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels. [/quote] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

I think the Four Horsemen have this guy covered. Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

If there's one thing we know about science, it's that our knowledge is very finite. That's similar to the "Socrates is wise..." paradox, but it works. Dawkins effort to dissuade belief in God using science is silly. If everything is based on what you can prove/disprove, then what's the point of taking an authoritative stance on something you cannot (dis)prove. As for Christians who think evolution is a challenge to Christianity, I'd like to know where it says that in the Bible or church tradition. If anything, evolution, even if we know very little about it, suggests a God. If anyhting, modern science (evolution, psychology, etc.) are more a threat to the philosophy which Christianity has supported itself with, than Christianity itself. And philosophy doesn't seem to run and pick fights w/ science. Scholaticism employed Arsitotle because he believed there was an order for things and being god meant understanding. Science, though it fucks up a lot of Aristotle's arguments, could do the same for Christianity.

[quote=gsicard] Can it be said then that - because man cannot really control or sequence nature accurately that we cannot dictate the evolution of the organism but rather through small adjustment of a single DNA element affect the minute changes that results in the slight mutations we call breeds. [/quote] Take into account the special ability of the Canidae family. Most of their changes come from a single source of code. Most other domesticated animals aren't as radically transformed from their ancestral counterparts. This is a small glimpse and example. Most species and their ancestral roots had many eons to produce the given results. I'm not too familiar with Dr Michael Behe's work, but it is interesting.

Is it really a special ability ? I mean no other domesticated species has such a broad range of application to human interests.

Yes. There genome is unique, to allow such variance in such a little amount of time. All Canids posses this unique genetic line or code elasticity if you will. Ever wonder why a brachycephalic cow doesn't exist? :wink:

But surely it is unique only insofar as no other organism at the time was so readily adaptable for the purpose desired. The genome does not reveal the polymorphism and exists in every caenid from poodle to wolf. There would be no natural advantage for a brachycephalic cow so it would not exist in the wild. I would assume the bovine would be no more or less 'elastic' than any other analogous organism subject to artificial selection.

I'm not talking about natural selection. How would a brachycephalic dog be a natural advantage? Try to make a brachycephalic bovine. So far, we have not found another organism with the fluid adaptability of the canid. I have been trying to relocate the article I read, but there is something to the genome of a canid which allows this rapid polymorphism, specifically a line of code. Also Belyaev's foxes were an interesting study.

Yeah so, I like the shorter haired "Kissable" Ovcharka much better. Your Neo has B.O :P

[blockquote]I'm not talking about natural selection. How would a brachycephalic dog be a natural advantage? Try to make a brachycephalic bovine.[/blockquote] Get a group of likeminds, start a club, write a standard, and ignore the organisms originally desireable traits and utility. [blockquote]So far, we have not found another organism with the fluid adaptability of the canid. I have been trying to relocate the article I read, but there is something to the genome of a canid which allows this rapid polymorphism, specifically a line of code. Also Belyaev's foxes were an interesting study.[/blockquote] OK, and if you could post a link or reference would be much appreciated.

I think this is what you are talking about http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/5/1157.pdf SINEs (selfish DNA) are not unique to the canine but I see what you are saying. The article seems to suggest that artificial selection is a facilitator in the higher frequency of SINEs in the canine genome.

Dog genetic plasticity is a result of their selective breeding by man, not a reason for it. "Repeated events of population size reduction, such as the bottleneck at the time of divergence between dog and wolf and the founder effects leading to the establishment of the different dog breeds (...) have facilitated the significant expansion of dog SINEs." - Cordaux and Batzer, taken from the link above Bottleneck any genome sufficiently and repeatedly over the course of 10 or 15 thousand years and you will most certainly get a brachycephalic animal, so to speak. Nobody has ever bred a cow for that purpose, of course we won't have brachycephalic cows running around until we decide to breed for them.

I don't feel like getting into this sort of argument yet again since all of you religious people just tend to ignore the facts... Most things (if not all) claimed by the Bible (and other scripture) have actually been disproven quite soundly today! The facts are to be found everywhere and I'm not getting into a discussion, as I said. Look it up for yourselves. Instead I will just recommend a couple of Documentaries which explain all of this much better than I ever could! The Shape of Life (7 parts) by PBS goes through the evolution of species from the most basic single-cell organisms to "complex" animals such as mammals and reptiles. It also shows a lot of the "new" "missing links" that have been found in the last couple of decades! (Like the transition from dino to bird). Dogs that Changed the World (2 parts) also by PBS explains through the new mapping of mtDNA, Beljajev's Foxes and genetics where, when and gives a very plausible theory on how dogs were domesticated and have evolved from there! They can be bought from PBS or downloaded (illegally) from torrentsites or P2P. Edit/addition: I can really recommend the BBC documentary "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" which shows in a clear and quite graphic way how breed after breed is completely destroyed by genetic and purely physical problems while the "top-breeders" keep on using seriously ill dogs for breeding and further cripple the breeds by making them even more deformed! But a head that is so small that it cant hold the brain anymore, causing extreme excrutiating pain is obviously "pretty"... Makes me sick!

To add my 2 cents - It seems, that breeding practices show that dog has niether more nor less "genetic elasticity" than other domesticated animals - e.q., cows and horses In 1700, the average British cow weighed about 170 kilograms; by 1800 their average weight reached 360 kg. Impressing? As to the horses - Google for "Tennessee Walking Horse"... Dogs are simply easier to "pick and choose" - average 6 puppies per bitch twice a year, one human life is enough to establish a "breed"... keeping it together is another question. That's why the biggest puzzle is how those aboriginal breeds manage to survive through milleniums, and still remain recognizable? Perhaps the answer will be the high level of genetic divercity inside the breed itself, which form very differnt breed types in aboriginal populations... CAO, CO, etc...

[quote1280270844=Imperor]Edit/addition: I can really recommend the BBC documentary "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" which shows in a clear and quite graphic way how breed after breed is completely destroyed by genetic and purely physical problems while the "top-breeders" keep on using seriously ill dogs for breeding and further cripple the breeds by making them even more deformed! But a head that is so small that it cant hold the brain anymore, causing extreme excrutiating pain is obviously "pretty"... Makes me sick! [/quote1280270844] What you've said - my dogs walked out of the room, they were so disturbed by the Boxer having a seizure

Ah, found it, Read: Pennisi, E. (Dec 2004). "Genetics. A ruff theory of evolution: gene stutters drive dog shape". Science (New York, N.Y.) 306 If plasticity is a result of man (and in some species' cases it is) alone, then why is it a "feature" of wild canids as well? There is more to our relationship and manipulation of canids.