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 ....
If we were to be embarrassed by everything or anything our fellow believers did or said, we’d never not be embarrassed.
Indistinguishable?
Depends on your power to distinguish. I hope you are not trying to say that their genomes are 100% similar.
Dogs are born with their eyes closed. But the dogs in your picture are clearly conservative. They have their eyes open.
The owners of clothing mills who bred them to catch rats.
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.
What exactly would “100% similar” mean?
bkmk
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.
It means 100% kind of the same.
Or maybe like
100% pure 10% natural fruit juice.
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.
BINGO
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
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.