Skip to comments.'Survival of the Cutest' Proves Darwin Right
Posted on 01/26/2010 2:10:25 PM PST by autumnraine
Domestic dogs have followed their own evolutionary path, twisting Darwin's directive 'survival of the fittest' to their own needs -- and have proved him right in the process, according to a new study by biologists Chris Klingenberg, of The University of Manchester and Abby Drake, of the College of the Holy Cross in the US.
The study, published in The American Naturalist on January 20, 2010, compared the skull shapes of domestic dogs with those of different species across the order Carnivora, to which dogs belong along with cats, bears, weasels, civets and even seals and walruses.
It found that the skull shapes of domestic dogs varied as much as those of the whole order. It also showed that the extremes of diversity were farther apart in domestic dogs than in the rest of the order. This means, for instance, that a Collie has a skull shape that is more different from that of a Pekingese than the skull shape of the cat is from that of a walrus.
Dr Drake explains: "We usually think of evolution as a slow and gradual process, but the incredible amount of diversity in domestic dogs has originated through selective breeding in just the last few hundred years, and particularly after the modern purebred dog breeds were established in the last 150 years."
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
diversity in domestic dogs has originated through selective breeding
Huh? There has been a designing intelligence at work here - the people who have been breeding dogs to select for various characteristics.
Leave it to a Darwinist to try and use the intelligent intervention of humans as proof of magic.
Amusing. But it’s not “survival of the cutest,” it’s “selective breeding of the cutest,” or of the most useful for various human purposes.
It’s not blind chance that results in different breeds of dog.
Also, of course, no one doubts that there is intraspecies evolution, natural as well as human guided. It’s general evolution, guided by blind chance, that is in question.
The article concludes with one of the good Darwinian doctors saying: “This study illustrates the power of Darwinian selection with so much variation produced in such a short period of time. The evidence is very strong.”
No, it illustrates how human intervention can produce remarkable variation within a species.
I’m a huge dog fan but the Darwinians certainly speak as evidence for the failure of their thesis, else how did they survive? They sure aren’t the smartest and I’ll bet not the cutest.
Dogs continue to be but ONE SPECIES.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I'll answer you with "1933":
The Helen Thomas of the dog world?
Dogs which don’t meet the breeders stringent target are either killed, or eliminated from reproduction in that breed, so change is rapid. Meanwhile wolves, which are subject only to natural selection, have not changed visibly in all the time humans have been watching them.
Please tell me we didn’t pay for this stupid study?
Always. The only difference is the agency doing the selection. The key facet of evolutionary theory is isolated populations facing different environmental challenges. The only difference here is that the "isolation" and selection "vector" are imposed by humans rather than Mother Nature.
Domestic dogs didn’t evolve through natural selection, they’ve been bred to be what they are. No one would argue that dairy cows or domestic turkeys are examples of the “survival of the fittest”
I’m no scientist, but dog selection is not natural selection. Humans breed dogs, not nature. Not that we’re never tricked into loving one kind over another, but for the most part it’s on purpose.
This means, for instance, that a Collie has a skull shape that is more different from that of a Pekingese than the skull shape of the cat is from that of a walrus.
Does this really make any sense? and what difference
does it make??
Darwin was right, “Without a walrus head kitties do not do well in cold attic waters, on the other hand a walrus tusk will poke your eye right out if he tries to lick your face.”
More like "survival of the fattest"! :-)
“The key facet of evolutionary theory is isolated populations facing different environmental challenges. The only difference here is that the ‘isolation’ and selection ‘vector’ are imposed by humans rather than Mother Nature.”
To my mind, that’s a HUGE difference, so much so that you’re really not studying the same thing at all. It’s the difference between a Blind Watchmaker and Intelligent Design.
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.