Replies

What you are describing is simple variation within a species, not inter-species evolution. The final analysis is that you still have a dog. By your definition then, every breeder who forces a new breed of dog to occur is causing what you call 'evolution' to occur.

You guys are the ones who have the theory that says life arose from non-life on its own; that all life comes from a common ancestor, and that higher order species evolved from lower order forms of life. I've never seen any of that occur. What is observable is that animals are able to adapt to their environments, but they still are the same animals. Dogs in cold weather have different body and hair than dogs in warm climates, but they still are dogs, they don't 'evolve' or bring forth offspring that aren't dogs.

So what you're really telling me is that over time you may get (and actually you would need TWO dogs on each island, male and female for your example) dogs that do not resemble the original dogs. You also assume they aren't purebreds, and you also assume they are not already adapted to their current environment. Given all of this, let's say they do adapt nad variations occur over time, and certain features become more prominent and certain things become less prominent. You still haven't added any NEW information. More fur, a smaller muzzle, longer legs is not evidence of evolution, but variation. Where is the new genetic information? It's just a modification of genetic information that was already present. Adaption doesn't create a dog with a beak, it may create a dog with different features than its predecessor - but it's still a dog, and will always be a dog.

Secret Agent Man, it saddens me that I had imagined you were sincerely open to learning what evolutionists were really claiming vs. what your preconceived notions were. I devoted several posts to clarifying the points you still want to use, and since you aren't refuting my earlier clarifications, I can only assume you are ignoring them.

It's too bad, really. I did enjoy the illusion that I was conversing with someone other than a talking point mouthpiece.

[Adaption doesn't create a dog with a beak, it may create a dog with different features than its predecessor - but it's still a dog, and will always be a dog.]

In the past few tens of thousands of years, evolution has created what are now dogs from wolf ancestor. There is not very much difference between a wolf and a dog, but the difference is just enough to justify calling them different species.

The same thing can be said for most species alive today. For example, I'm looking at a book right now called "Birds of North America" [GOLDEN] and I can look at nearly any page and see different species of birds which are not very different from each other but which are distinct species.

From page 174-180, for example, There are listed and pictured these owls (family Tytonidae and Strigidae):

EASTERN SCREECH OWL
WESTERN SCREECH OWL
GREAT HORNED OWL
LONG EARED OWL
SHORT EARED OWL
BARN OWL
SNOWY OWL
BARRED OWL
SPOTTED OWL
GREAT GREY OWL
NORTHERN HAWK OWL
BURROWING OWL
BOREAL OWL
NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL
WHISKERED SCREECH OWL
FLAMMULATED OWL
NORTHERN PYGMY OWL
ELF OWL
FERRUGINOUS PYGMY OWL

These are all considered distinct species and a good question to ask is "Did these owls evolve from a common ancestor according to what we expect from natural selection, or did God decide that all these species needed to be purposely and separately created?"

This argument can be applied equally to the rest of the bird families in this book such as waterfowl (family Anatidae) which includes all the species of ducks, swans and geese, or the accipiter family (Accipitridae) which include all the species of kites, hawks, eagles and ospreys.

Pick up a book on insects, trees, flowering plants, reptiles and amphibians or any of a number of other organisms and see the same thing; many, many, discrete species which are not much different from any of its most closely related species, and this is just what we expect from the evolutionary process.