Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Dog Genome Research Nixes Evolutionary Paradigm
Institute for Creation Research ^ | May 2014 | Jeffrey Tomkins PhD

Posted on 05/13/2014 9:04:34 AM PDT by fishtank

New Dog Genome Research Nixes Evolutionary Paradigm by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

Evolutionists are desperate to find genomic evidence proving Darwinian ideas about natural selection and evolution. One of the chief areas where they have searched for such evidence is in the canine (dog) genome, by studying the DNA of both domestic and wild dogs.

The basic paradigm describing the domestication of dogs is typically proposed as a two-phase process.1 In the first part, it is believed that dogs were originally taken from the wild as wolves by early humans who selected and bred different varieties that were useful for companionship, hunting, and protection. In the second stage, which has continued up to this time, dogs allegedly co-evolved with humans, who became their caregivers. During this stage, humans developed the vast array of modern dog breeds that show remarkable variability in traits for personality and appearance.

Related to this whole two-stage paradigm is the hypothesis that the genes associated with the digestive system of dogs would have evolved over thousands of years to reflect a change to a more human-oriented diet. Specifically, this is thought to be the case for dogs in modern human populations that eat high levels of carbohydrates found in grains and vegetables. Evolutionists believe that when humans first domesticated wolves these canines were hunters and therefore primarily meat eaters. Then humans and dogs, over time, became more dependent on the high-starch foods of agriculture—providing a type of “selective pressure” on the dog genome.

...more at link ....


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: creation; dogs; genome

Cute doggies in photo - ICR article image.

1 posted on 05/13/2014 9:04:34 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone
who have the courage to defend it."

~Pericles




Please support Free Republic
click the pic


2 posted on 05/13/2014 9:04:59 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Oh, by the way, it’s far better to contribute a thoughtful post rather than a “protest march slur”.


3 posted on 05/13/2014 9:05:16 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Says him.


4 posted on 05/13/2014 9:10:49 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Even chihuahua DNA is indistinguishable from wolf DNA, so I don’t think much evolution has occurred in the few thousand years that dogs have been domesticated.


5 posted on 05/13/2014 9:12:10 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Well played. sir.


6 posted on 05/13/2014 9:14:11 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Actually no. Current thinking is that wolves were attracted to human rubbish piles. The ones who were naturally less nervous around humans got the most stuff and survived better to mate with other wolves who were less nervous. This self selection repeated over a number of generations until you had an animal with dog like characteristics.

What happened naturally was replicated experimentally in foxes in Russia.

is believed that dogs were originally taken from the wild as wolves by early humans who selected and bred different varieties that were useful for companionship, hunting, and protection.

7 posted on 05/13/2014 9:16:57 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Good grief, this guy is an embarassment.


8 posted on 05/13/2014 9:23:55 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Who the heck decided a “yorkie” was “useful”?


9 posted on 05/13/2014 9:25:24 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Inbred royalty with too much time on their hands.


10 posted on 05/13/2014 9:26:36 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Inbred royalty with too much time on their hands.


11 posted on 05/13/2014 9:26:37 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote; DManA

From the article:

“...more comprehensive research that examined a much greater number of wolf and wild dog genomes.3 The researchers discovered that the copy number of amylase genes was actually not fixed or stable across diverse dog, wolf, and wild dog genomes—but instead varied widely. In fact, as the data set for dog genomes has increased, it is now apparent that no consistent pattern for dietary evolution exists at all. The evolutionary lingo for such an observation is that the patterns are now called “complex” instead of showing evidence for selection.”

Are you disputing this?


12 posted on 05/13/2014 9:33:05 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrB

The “Yorkie” was developed for ratting.

They could kill way more rats than a cat could.

http://moderndogmagazine.com/breeds/yorkshire-terrier

“...The exact origins of the Yorkshire Terrier are obscure. What is amply certain is that its original purpose was to control rats in the factories, coal mines and textile mills of Yorkshire, in northern England, during the Industrial Revolution...”


13 posted on 05/13/2014 9:35:12 AM PDT by PeteB570 ( Islam is the sea in which the Terrorist Shark swims. The deeper the sea the larger the shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

I can see them killing more than a cat would, because once the cat eats a couple, they stop hunting.


14 posted on 05/13/2014 9:37:00 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

I dispute everything this guy says.


15 posted on 05/13/2014 9:37:15 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DManA
"What happened naturally was replicated experimentally in tamed foxes in Russia."

I probably saw the same program as you did regarding the fox experiment. The experiment showed that the DNA in the tamed foxes actually changed and started forming variations in color and tail shapes/behavior.

16 posted on 05/13/2014 9:38:03 AM PDT by lormand (Inside every liberal is a dung slinging monkey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570

That makes a Yorkie far more useful than a Chihuahua.


17 posted on 05/13/2014 9:38:48 AM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (I'm not anti-government, government's anti-me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570
"What is amply certain is that its original purpose was to control rats"

I say everyone send a Yorkie to Washington!!
18 posted on 05/13/2014 9:40:59 AM PDT by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DManA

So you are just knee jerk.

Genome data is just in it’s infancy and will overturn all sorts of assumptions as it comes in.

We really know very little about evolution and hubris of zealots against creationists who can sometimes point our lack of knowledge out, doesn’t contribute anything.

Why do you care what ICR writes?


19 posted on 05/13/2014 9:43:45 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

As a Christian it is an embarrassment.


20 posted on 05/13/2014 9:45:26 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DManA

If we were to be embarrassed by everything or anything our fellow believers did or said, we’d never not be embarrassed.


21 posted on 05/13/2014 9:51:25 AM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Even chihuahua DNA is indistinguishable from wolf DNA, so I don’t think much evolution has occurred in the few thousand years that dogs have been domesticated.

Indistinguishable?

Depends on your power to distinguish. I hope you are not trying to say that their genomes are 100% similar.

22 posted on 05/13/2014 9:58:06 AM PDT by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank; All

23 posted on 05/13/2014 10:00:03 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570
Yorkies are good ratters, but I'll take my American Rat Terrier (mine is a bit larger than average). Mine is big enough to take on a lot of larger vermin. I also have a Jack Russell. The Jack Russell plays more, but when the rubber hits the road, the American Rattie stays more focused and gets the job done more consistently.


24 posted on 05/13/2014 10:06:09 AM PDT by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Dogs are born with their eyes closed. But the dogs in your picture are clearly conservative. They have their eyes open.


25 posted on 05/13/2014 10:10:18 AM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

The owners of clothing mills who bred them to catch rats.


26 posted on 05/13/2014 10:16:06 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: corkoman

Here is a nice lick to some background reading

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706.full


27 posted on 05/13/2014 10:28:33 AM PDT by PeteB570 ( Islam is the sea in which the Terrorist Shark swims. The deeper the sea the larger the shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

28 posted on 05/13/2014 10:29:07 AM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan; DManA
If we were to be embarrassed by everything or anything our fellow believers did or said, we’d never not be embarrassed.

This is true — there are, however, things that should embarrass us though.
These two books contain enough convicting material to do a whole year's worth of good sermons each, even though neither is more than five chapters.

29 posted on 05/13/2014 10:31:35 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: corkoman

What exactly would “100% similar” mean?


30 posted on 05/13/2014 10:50:46 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

bkmk


31 posted on 05/13/2014 10:52:19 AM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeteB570; fishtank; ntnychik; PhilDragoo; everyone
For their size, Yorkies are very brave. My 'Piper' has chased a herd of deer out into the pasture......See HERE - he even brought me a Reindeer!! snicker

They were bred for 'ratting' because of their small size and ability to enter small holes and openings. The long hair also helped protect them from being bitten. My dog has the most amazing sense of smell and can follow a trail.

32 posted on 05/13/2014 10:55:59 AM PDT by potlatch ("Dream as if you'll live forever...Live as if you'll die today")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrB

It means 100% kind of the same.

Or maybe like

100% pure 10% natural fruit juice.


33 posted on 05/13/2014 12:19:47 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

The Institute for Creative Research at work again.

What the study is saying is that the differences between wolf genome and dog genome with respect to digestive capabilities APPEARS not to be significant.

Using this result, the Institute for Creative Research takes the leap that ERGO, evolution of dogs from wolves did not occur.

This is like saying that since the digestive system of Race Horses and Arabian Horses appear to be basically identical, the one did nor develop from the other.

AMAZING.

I give them an “A” for faith and an “F” for thinking.


34 posted on 05/13/2014 1:44:39 PM PDT by ZULU (https://www.facebook.com/freejustina)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

BINGO


35 posted on 05/13/2014 1:44:57 PM PDT by ZULU (https://www.facebook.com/freejustina)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

It’s always useful with ICR articles to check the original sources when you can, because you can be sure the ICR writers will distort them. In this case, the original researchers concluded merely that dogs started to be domesticated pre-agriculture, so shared the same highly carnivorous diet as their hunter-gatherer companions: “In conjunction with the estimated timing of dog origins, these results provide additional support to archaeological finds, suggesting the earliest dogs arose alongside hunter-gathers rather than agriculturists.” They also suggest that there was a lot of admixture in the early days, so wolves and dogs wouldn’t be as different as they might have been otherwise.

In addition, they suggest that “the [amylase] copy number expansion was not fixed across all dogs early in the domestication process. In a survey of sequence data from 12 additional domestic dog breeds, we find that the Siberian Husky, a breed historically associated with nomadic hunter gatherers of the Arctic, has only three to four copies...whereas the Saluki, which was historically bred in the Fertile Crescent where agriculture originated, has 29 copies.” Which would seem to support the idea that evolving in conjunction with agriculture *would* result in modification of the genome.

Summary: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016

Full paper: http://public-files.prbb.org/publicacions/72e67900-6a27-0131-59c6-525400e56e78.pdf


36 posted on 05/13/2014 5:25:30 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson