# Darwin was onto something



## bullethead (Mar 23, 2020)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientist-just-proved-one-darwins-220700692.html

An English anthropologist says she's proven Darwin's theories about species and subspecies.


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 24, 2020)

Very interesting perspective. The different and changing environment's role in the creation of subspecies seem evident enough and I think this is possibly not new concept. But the link to new species, less so. The "human effect" on the environment and  the possible creation and elimination of subspecies is also interesting. But new species? The case for new species is commonly fossils and DNA. What is new in the author's work on species from her sources?

It seems she is stating that new species come from subspecies. I wonder what is her proof for this and indeed new? Interesting indeed.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 3, 2020)

Around here, there are several relic Pleistocene species that can only survive at high elevations about 5,000-6,000', where the climate is similar to Canada. They got trapped on mountaintops when the glaciers receded, and now many of the mountaintops are like islands, with hostile environments for northern species between them. You can see where populations of salamanders, etc, are morphing into different species on isolated mountaintops, when they all started out the same.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 3, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> Very interesting perspective. The different and changing environment's role in the creation of subspecies seem evident enough and I think this is possibly not new concept. But the link to new species, less so. The "human effect" on the environment and  the possible creation and elimination of subspecies is also interesting. But new species? The case for new species is commonly fossils and DNA. What is new in the author's work on species from her sources?
> 
> It seems she is stating that new species come from subspecies. I wonder what is her proof for this and indeed new? Interesting indeed.



How do you delineate species from sub species?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 21, 2020)

atlashunter said:


> How do you delineate species from sub species?




Good question. Let me start here. There  are at least 20 subspecies of whitetail deer in North America---mostly due to isolation to differing environments. They all have different physical aspects, but nevertheless they are all of the same species or all whitetail deer. Also in their species cervidae is moose, elk and caribou, they are said not other in intrinsic aspects ( antlers) than wt deer and all are cervids.

  Now I understand that if new species from deer or cervids were to occur, due to environment, it would  need be something or some beast separate from cervids, bovines, camalids or horses.


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> Good question. Let me start here. There  are at least 20 subspecies of whitetail deer in North America---mostly due to isolation to differing environments. They all have different physical aspects, but nevertheless they are all of the same species or all whitetail deer. Also in their species cervidae is moose, elk and caribou, they are said not other in intrinsic aspects ( antlers) than wt deer and all are cervids.
> 
> Now I understand that if new species from deer or cervids were to occur, due to environment, it would  need be something or some beast separate from cervids, bovines, camalids or horses.



Cervidae would be a family, not a species right? How do you delineate one species from another? Is it just different physical traits or something more?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 21, 2020)

I believe delineation is done simply for physical and behavioral traits... but their might be more. It was always my understanding that cervids (wt  deer) was a species, but you are most likely right they are part of the cervid family.  What I have issue with in the article is the inference that  subspecies "presages new species ". How does a pig become a deer or a deer becomes a pig? Does it follow that because environment tailors subspecies-- subspecies tailor new species? Where is the evidence from the new research which until now seems only from DNA and fossils?


----------



## atlashunter (May 21, 2020)

gordon 2 said:


> I believe delineation is done simply for physical and behavioral traits... but their might be more. It was always my understanding that cervids (wt  deer) was a species, but you are most likely right they are part of the cervid family.  What I have issue with in the article is the inference that  subspecies "presages new species ". How does a pig become a deer or a deer becomes a pig? Does it follow that because environment tailors subspecies-- subspecies tailor new species? Where is the evidence from the new research which until now seems only from DNA and fossils?



So my layman’s understanding of what delineates a species is animals that are closely related enough that they can breed and produce fertile offspring.

With subspecies you have the capacity to interbreed but it doesn’t happen typically due to geographic isolation so you end up with groups with different traits.

The reason I asked how you make the delineation was to know if it you shared or took issue with this common understanding.

Are you familiar with ring species?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html


----------



## brian lancaster (May 22, 2020)

read the bible  God explains all you need


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2020)

brian lancaster said:


> read the bible  God explains all you need


Can you give examples?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 25, 2020)

atlashunter said:


> So my layman’s understanding of what delineates a species is animals that are closely related enough that they can breed and produce fertile offspring.
> 
> With subspecies you have the capacity to interbreed but it doesn’t happen typically due to geographic isolation so you end up with groups with different traits.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks. This is very interesting. And thanks for the clarification of what is a species and subspecies. Much appreciated. So with these definitions I understand now what "presage new species means." Thanks again. Like you mentioned earlier, I was asking questions related to "families" which the article does not talk about.


----------



## hopper (Jun 11, 2020)

brian lancaster said:


> read the bible  God explains all you need


Never seen anything in the bible about this. Definitely not gonna read the whole thing to find it in there if it is. Could you give some pg.# or something?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 12, 2020)

hopper said:


> Never seen anything in the bible about this. Definitely not gonna read the whole thing to find it in there if it is.


Those two statements have a lot in common.


----------



## hopper (Jun 12, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> Those two statements have a lot in common.


Haha maybee should of been more accurate and said "re read the whole thing" it has been many years


----------



## hopper (Jun 12, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> Those two statements have a lot in common.


Hey spot dont miss read what I was asking. I  really was curious were it could be found.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 12, 2020)

hopper said:


> Hey spot dont miss read what I was asking. I  really was curious were it could be found.


Lol I’m a professional at mis reading.

For the topic - creation belongs to God.

With an open mind, evolving is still part of creation. Nothing is new.


----------



## across the river (Jun 12, 2020)

There is not another animal species in the history of the world that has been more genticly segerated and isolated than the domestic dog.  People have managed to "evolve" everything from Great Danes to toy poodles, labs and golden retrievers to weiner dogs and bulldogs.  When they "evolve" a dog that is genetically a different species, then Darwin and this women will have been on to something.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2020)

across the river said:


> There is not another animal species in the history of the world that has been more genticly segerated and isolated than the domestic dog.  People have managed to "evolve" everything from Great Danes to toy poodles, labs and golden retrievers to weiner dogs and bulldogs.  When they "evolve" a dog that is genetically a different species, then Darwin and this women will have been on to something.


That really would be something. 
Who are "they"?
And
Who said people can evolve anything?
It doesn't sound like an understanding of evolution is part of your process.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2020)

"Evolution doesn’t claim that one species “turns into” another species. It says that the offspring of an individual organism may differ from the parents and that with enough variation a new species will emerge."


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2020)

https://www.inverse.com/science/urban-fox-study-new-clues-animal-domestication


----------



## across the river (Jun 13, 2020)

bullethead said:


> "Evolution doesn’t claim that one species “turns into” another species. It says that the offspring of an individual organism may differ from the parents and that with enough variation a new species will emerge."




Exactly.  In Darwin's  theory, the "variation" occurs due to a beneficial genetic traits being carried out and unbeneficial traits  failing over time.  In "nature" it occurs because of natural selection, but in domesticated dogs it occurs because the breeders breed for a particular trait.  There is no other animal that has had more "variation" in it genetic makeup than domestic dogs because the characteristics were selected and breed over time  to strengthen that desired set of characteristics artificially.  The same exact thing Darwin said happened on the islands with those species.  Yet, as differentiated a the genes have become in the domestic dogs, they are all still one species, after all of these years.  Look at the number of different birds, cats, dogs, cows, etc.... that have been "created" by selective breeding, yet a single new species has never "emerged" from any of that selective breeding, which changes characteristics far more rapidly than natural selection.  If a new species was going to "emerge" due to variation, why hasn't it happened?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2020)

across the river said:


> Exactly.  In Darwin's  theory, the "variation" occurs due to a beneficial genetic traits being carried out and unbeneficial traits  failing over time.  In "nature" it occurs because of natural selection, but in domesticated dogs it occurs because the breeders breed for a particular trait.  There is no other animal that has had more "variation" in it genetic makeup than domestic dogs because the characteristics were selected and breed over time  to strengthen that desired set of characteristics artificially.  The same exact thing Darwin said happened on the islands with those species.  Yet, as differentiated a the genes have become in the domestic dogs, they are all still one species, after all of these years.  Look at the number of different birds, cats, dogs, cows, etc.... that have been "created" by selective breeding, yet a single new species has never "emerged" from any of that selective breeding, which changes characteristics far more rapidly than natural selection.  If a new species was going to "emerge" due to variation, why hasn't it happened?


How long  do you think it takes?
Man has not domesticated dogs long enough.
It isn't 5,000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years. It is MILLIONS OF YEARS until what you want to happen,  will happen.
Some people think this all took place over 6,000 years. Not even close.
Man had not been breeding dogs, birds , cats  long enough.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2020)

Here are some things to sift through
http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/83780-how-long-does-it-take-a-species-to-evolve/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2020)

Most species die out before a total change is ever made.
It is borderline inconceivable to comprehend just how much time it sll takes.


----------



## across the river (Jun 13, 2020)

bullethead said:


> How long  do you think it takes?
> Man has not domesticated dogs long enough.
> It isn't 5,000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years. It is MILLIONS OF YEARS until what you want to happen,  will happen.
> Some people think this all took place over 6,000 years. Not even close.
> Man had not been breeding dogs, birds , cats  long enough.




I knew it was coming, the ol' give it a billon years and you will get something new.   I agree it takes forever to "naturally select", but domesticated breeding multiplies that dramatically, exponentially in fact.  So why does it have to take a million plus years?   If it is a heredity mutation, which it would have to be in order for it to be passed along to offspring, why does that take a million years or more. Viruses mutate constantly, yet we haven't seen one turn into a cell yet, even though it had to happen in the past "billion" plus years.  For thousands of years a domestic dogs has been a domestic dog, the genes have been honed exponentially fast compared to nature, and even "bad traits" that wouldn't "evolve" in nature are established in populations, which should lead to even a faster rate of mutation.   Yet nothing new has been developed.   You can breed a lab for a million years, and you will still have a lab.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2020)

across the river said:


> I knew it was coming, the ol' give it a billon years and you will get something new.   I agree it takes forever to "naturally select", but domesticated breeding multiplies that dramatically, exponentially in fact.  So why does it have to take a million plus years?   If it is a heredity mutation, which it would have to be in order for it to be passed along to offspring, why does that take a million years or more. Viruses mutate constantly, yet we haven't seen one turn into a cell yet, even though it had to happen in the past "billion" plus years.  For thousands of years a domestic dogs has been a domestic dog, the genes have been honed exponentially fast compared to nature, and even "bad traits" that wouldn't "evolve" in nature are established in populations, which should lead to even a faster rate of mutation.   Yet nothing new has been developed.   You can breed a lab for a million years, and you will still have a lab.



Will you explain to us how you think a domesticated dog will evolve into a new species? More to the point, why would selective breeding do anything but create a new breed that has enhanced the breed?
Hip dysplasia is a problem in many pure bred breeds. Mutts, Heinz 57 Varieties of dogs do not have many of those common pure bred problems. The domesticated inter breeding has taken some the good qualities and eliminated some of the the bad qualities and has made a new "better" breed. But it is still a Dog. Take the human equation out of it and you will  have a Labrador Retriever with bad hips which will breed with others Labs with bad hips and have babies with bad hips and on and on and on over a lot of time that particular breed may die off sooner as it's life expectancy diminishes because of the breeds inability to run away long enough from natural predators. In the wild with no human interaction those traits will cause the dogs who now normally live 10-12 years with the first 5 or 6 years being healthy and because of human involvement/help the other 5 or 6 years are keeping the dog comfortable so as not to die off more quickly. And odds are without human help the dogs within that breed with hip problems will die off at a faster rate than their breeding can keep up with so that portion of the breed will go extinct before any evolution of "fixing" the problem occurs.
A species that naturally evolves adapts slowly to their needs. They adapt or die. The Labs with no hip problems who breed with other Labs with no hip problems pass those genes along to their offspring. It is allowed because humans keep the breed safe enough for long enough to allow the process to take hold.
We as humans make conditions better for, and or make dogs (through selective breeding) adapt to problems that would otherwise be their demise so that there is no need for that species to have to change. We make dogs "better" dogs and that keeps nature from allowing them the chance to become something else.

Domesticated dogs are purposely bred to meet OUR needs which is to keep them as domesticated dogs.

Let em go, they will grow. *If there is a need to do so and the change can outlast the time it takes to complete it.

Domesticated dogs evolve into new breeds constantly. We hamper their evolution to a new species.
Human involvement which advances the process so quickly actually eliminates the natural selection, isolation and natural adaptation that allows those or a breed to evolve into a different species.
A wolf can breed with a Labrador Retriever and have offspring. Both are from the same Canidae and same lineage. Wolves and Dogs are inter-fertile. They can mate and have young.

A Fox and a Dog cannot breed despite them being from the same Canidae as dogs and wolves but their lineage has split and has made them a different species within the same family. The chromosomes differ between the two so successful breeding will not take place.
The difference between wolves/dogs and a fox, which now prevents them from interbreeding  IS because of the evolution from isolation of a common ancestor  and multiple common ancestors which allowed that animal to overcome and adapt what was needed to survive.  It took a lot of time and the deaths of a lot of failed tries until it happened.
Humans make something that is already a dog a better dog or a new dog to fit the needs of humans. Through that process humans eliminates the need for natural selection therefore stalling Evolution not enhancing evolution as you seem to think it should be.
Evolution takes place when something needs to change or it will die. Domesticated dogs are not in that predicament. If anything, man has made it too easy for them to survive


----------



## across the river (Jun 14, 2020)

bullethead said:


> A species that naturally evolves adapts slowly to their needs. They adapt or die. The Labs with no hip problems who breed with other Labs with no hip problems pass those genes along to their offspring. It is allowed because humans keep the breed safe enough for long enough to allow the process to take hold.
> We as humans make conditions better for, and or make dogs (through selective breeding) adapt to problems that would otherwise be their demise so that there is no need for that species to have to change. We make dogs "better" dogs and that keeps nature from allowing them the chance to become something else.
> 
> Domesticated dogs are purposely bred to meet OUR needs which is to keep them as domesticated dogs.
> ...



You are mixing up two concepts.   Yes, advantageous characteristic are "naturally selected' in a species over time and can even be done fairly quickly in a localized population.   A area of one population of the same bug or animal can have a different dominant color based than another population somewhere else with different trees, whatever.    Over time the advantageous characteristics take over, etc...

However, the reason the wolf can't breed with the coyote, wolf, domestic dog, etc..... has nothing to do with its "evolved characteristics" and everything to do with a mutation that occurred that that "changed" the animals genetic code from what ever the original dog was to a different species.   Without a genetic mutation, a wolf, a dingo, a coyote, etc....are all simply different "dog breeds."    The fact that natural selection picks "good traits" and breeding selects "desired traits" has nothing to do with.   The mutation will still have to occur to get a new, "completely autonomous" animal (wolf verses coyote)  form the ancestor regardless of whether it occurred in nature or in a domestic breed.  Trait wise, dogs have been as genetically differentiated as  much as any animal, yet all dogs can still breed together.   No mutation has occurred.       From an evolutionary standpoint according to Darwin, the birds on the "islands" differentiated from other birds because they were isolated and their "genes" were isolated from other population.   That is exactly the same thin that happens in domestic dogs, it is just artificial.   Whether a "mutation" occurs has nothing to do with whether it is a good characteristic or a "bad one."   The only variable is time.   The assumption is if you breed something long enough it will eventually change to something else.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 14, 2020)

bullethead said:


> That really would be something.
> Who are "they"?
> And
> Who said people can evolve anything?
> It doesn't sound like an understanding of evolution is part of your process.



"They " did it.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-species-lizard-lab-cloning.html


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 14, 2020)

Seems solid to me.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2020)

across the river said:


> You are mixing up two concepts.   Yes, advantageous characteristic are "naturally selected' in a species over time and can even be done fairly quickly in a localized population.   A area of one population of the same bug or animal can have a different dominant color based than another population somewhere else with different trees, whatever.    Over time the advantageous characteristics take over, etc...
> 
> However, the reason the wolf can't breed with the coyote, wolf, domestic dog, etc..... has nothing to do with its "evolved characteristics" and everything to do with a mutation that occurred that that "changed" the animals genetic code from what ever the original dog was to a different species.   Without a genetic mutation, a wolf, a dingo, a coyote, etc....are all simply different "dog breeds."    The fact that natural selection picks "good traits" and breeding selects "desired traits" has nothing to do with.   The mutation will still have to occur to get a new, "completely autonomous" animal (wolf verses coyote)  form the ancestor regardless of whether it occurred in nature or in a domestic breed.  Trait wise, dogs have been as genetically differentiated as  much as any animal, yet all dogs can still breed together.   No mutation has occurred.       From an evolutionary standpoint according to Darwin, the birds on the "islands" differentiated from other birds because they were isolated and their "genes" were isolated from other population.   That is exactly the same thin that happens in domestic dogs, it is just artificial.   Whether a "mutation" occurs has nothing to do with whether it is a good characteristic or a "bad one."   The only variable is time.   The assumption is if you breed something long enough it will eventually change to something else.



You are wrong. A wolf CAN breed with dogs and coyotes. They all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs which allows them to hybridize freely and produce offspring.

And.

You are still mistaken about how evolution works. Or at the least you are confusing what a species and evolution within the same species is.

What that anything humans have done while domesticating dogs would have turned dogs into a new species by now?
We have no need to want dogs to be anything other than dogs and the dogs obviously don't need anything to change by any other means either.


----------



## across the river (Jun 14, 2020)

bullethead said:


> You are wrong. A wolf CAN breed with dogs and coyotes. They all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs which allows them to hybridize freely and produce offspring.
> 
> And.
> 
> ...



I should have said doesn't breed, not can't, my bad.  My point is, and I'm does with it at this point because we aren't going to change each others mind, is the process by which evolution "evolved" species is genetic differentiation, which the same exact thing that happens in selective breeding.   One occurs over a very long time and one occurs over shorter period of time.  From Darwin himself, 
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives,
not the most intelligent that survives.
It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

That mans that ultimately, the "species" would turn into a new species.  The bird on the island with a slightly more "curved" beak compared to others, over  many many years creates a population of birds with "curved beaks."   Likewise, in domestic dogs mini dogs, big dogs, long dogs short dogs, etc... have all been genetically differentiated, yet are all the same species.   A new species and ultimately animal doesn't come to being just from genetic differentiation.   It results from a mutation.   If that is the case, the why hasn't any mutation like that shown up in any of the selectively bred animals over the thousands of years they have been breed?  If wolves or humans or birds or whatever breeds for millions of years they will absolutely develop toward the desired traits, I agree 100%. However, they can't eventually "evolve" into something else without mutation.  It can't happen.  So if everything originated from a single cell organism, everything has had to mutation to get from the ocean to the land to the air etc....   Yet we have not seen one mutation that displays this.  Not one.  I'm done.   I guess you and I can sort it out in a million years or so.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2020)

across the river said:


> I should have said doesn't breed, not can't, my bad.  My point is, and I'm does with it at this point because we aren't going to change each others mind, is the process by which evolution "evolved" species is genetic differentiation, which the same exact thing that happens in selective breeding.   One occurs over a very long time and one occurs over shorter period of time.  From Darwin himself,
> “It is not the strongest of the species that survives,
> not the most intelligent that survives.
> It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
> ...


Those finches are not a new species. They can still breed with other "finches". ( Actually they are a type of blackbird,  Darwin wasn't a bird expert) They are a differentiation of the same species due to evolution which allowed them to adapt.
Man has done to dogs what happened to the finches and their beaks
But
The finches won't turn into a 4 legged pet And the dogs won't develop wings 
Now,
Modern birds like chickens may very well be descendants of much larger dinosaurs 

Is it your understanding that every current species now came from One , aka the first single cell organism?
Or are you saying that there were many single cell organisms that spawned  all that came after them?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2020)

*Across the river,*

*Species Definition*. A *species *is a group *of *organisms that share a genetic heritage, are able to interbreed, and to create offspring that are also fertile.
IE: Dogs can and do breed with dogs and they can have offspring.
Meaning Humans have taken a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle and made a new species called LabraDoodle. The offspring are fertile and can also successfully breed with any other dog, wolf, coyote, dingo and have fertile offspring. 
Humans have done what takes nature a much longer time to do without human involvement. 

I think you are expecting that a dog should have been turned into a SaberToothed and Winged Creature by now due to domestication and human involvement.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2020)

bullethead said:


> Most species die out before a total change is ever made.
> It is borderline inconceivable to comprehend just how much time it sll takes.


Out of curiosity - with the amount of human involvement in purposely “mix breeding”....and the natural mix breeding that occurs in animals just because the opportunities existed; based on the above, how comfortable are we in saying that a change occurred in order to adapt?

In a million years it will be interesting to hear how the theory itself will evolve in order to explain how the white and black race disappeared in order to evolve into this mixed race.

Are things really evolving in order to adapt? (Again, just out of curiosity, I don’t have any supporting material)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> Out of curiosity - with the amount of human involvement in purposely “mix breeding”....and the natural mix breeding that occurs in animals just because the opportunities existed; based on the above, how comfortable are we in saying that a change occurred in order to adapt?
> 
> In a million years it will be interesting to hear how the theory itself will evolve in order to explain how the white and black race disappeared in order to evolve into this mixed race.
> 
> Are things really evolving in order to adapt? (Again, just out of curiosity, I don’t have any supporting material)


Opportunity definitely plays a role in breeding. It is not necessarily due to adaptation. Evolution happens as a result of availability and opportunity , but it is different than happening out of need to survive.

An example of adaptation from need would be humans that were stuck on a remote island where available cover was small caves with 4ft openings and passageways. Lets say the raw materials there did not allow tools to be made that would enlarge the space inside so the humans had to constantly bend over/crouch in order to traverse and live in the caves.

Over time, and due to the passing of genes because of breeding, many of the taller offspring may very well learn, through adaptation to walk on all fours instead of upright. Their bones structure will adapt to allow the easier use of the appendage angles needed, weight distribution etc etc.
Conversely on an adjacent island of similar cave structure may have humans of smaller stature who for a variety of reasons got on that island.
Their offspring may not need to walk on all fours because they are small in height to begin with.
Or
The height may be bred out of the sequence...or any number of possibilities out of need will cause these adaptations. 

An example of adaptation not happening is a 6ft2 woman hooks up with a 6ft7 man and they have 3 children. 2 of the kids end up being 7ft and the 3rd is 5'10".
In that case it is genetic odds, not any sort of adaptation.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 16, 2020)

If one is not going to be compelled by the fossil or DNA record then there's nothing else to show them.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 16, 2020)

ambush80 said:


> If one is not going to be compelled by the fossil or DNA record then there's nothing else to show them.


For me it’s not so much as being compelled by DNA or the fossil. I’m good with following the trail back to its” origin.  The purpose of evolution is to adapt to the changing environment? 

But, are we really survivalist, or simply opportunist / adventurous? Or all 3? If we are looking for truth - be nice to know how scientists will differentiate those possibilities.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 16, 2020)

Spotlite said:


> For me it’s not so much as being compelled by DNA or the fossil. I’m good with following the trail back to its” origin.  The purpose of evolution is to adapt to the changing environment?
> 
> But, are we really survivalist, or simply opportunist / adventurous? Or all 3? If we are looking for truth - be nice to know how scientists will differentiate those possibilities.



Sounds like the domain of Anthropology.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2020)

across the river said:


> Exactly.  In Darwin's  theory, the "variation" occurs due to a beneficial genetic traits being carried out and unbeneficial traits  failing over time.  In "nature" it occurs because of natural selection, but in domesticated dogs it occurs because the breeders breed for a particular trait.  There is no other animal that has had more "variation" in it genetic makeup than domestic dogs because the characteristics were selected and breed over time  to strengthen that desired set of characteristics artificially.  The same exact thing Darwin said happened on the islands with those species.  Yet, as differentiated a the genes have become in the domestic dogs, they are all still one species, after all of these years.  Look at the number of different birds, cats, dogs, cows, etc.... that have been "created" by selective breeding, yet a single new species has never "emerged" from any of that selective breeding, which changes characteristics far more rapidly than natural selection.  If a new species was going to "emerge" due to variation, why hasn't it happened?



You’re conflating morphological diversity with genetic diversity. Selective breeding has resulted in less genetic diversity in dogs, not more.

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/plosable/dna-dogs


----------

