|
|
Post by robin on Mar 18, 2010 9:09:34 GMT -8
I found this interesting article about the evolution of dogs. The article sites a recent genetic study that indicates that the various breeds of dogs today descended from wolves in the middle east. The beginning of the family tree, or micro evolution is believed to have began about 13,000 years ago. In past discussions with evolutionists, here and elsewhere, I have been told that it would be impossible for all of the various breeds to have developed so fast. Now I still believe that the process developed faster (6-8 thousand years), but even 13,000 years seems to be in conflict with what evolutionists have told me in the past. That being, that it would take 10's of thousands, if not 100's of thousands of years for such evolution to transpire. The article also points out that the long held belief that dogs originated in the fertile crescent seems to be incorrect, and in fact the dog's ancestors are traced back to the middle east. This view would seem to make sense if there was a global flood, as the Bible states, and after the flood the various animals on the Ark had spread out from there. Here is the article if anyone is interested. news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100317/sc_afp/scienceanimalsdogs |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 18, 2010 11:34:56 GMT -8
Do you mean all the various breeds of dogs?
Also, the Fertile Crescent is in the Middle East, so how are the two different sources?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 18, 2010 13:38:19 GMT -8
Yes dogs. I did not specify because the subject of the thread was in regarding various dog breeds, so I assumed that would be implied.
It was my mistake to make a distinction between the middle east and the fertile crescent. My past understanding, and apparently incorrect understanding, was that the fertile crescent was in Africa, and not in the middle east. My mistake. I should pay closer attention to the details. This fact however does not change my overall view on the subject, nor do I see why it should.
Do you have any other thoughts about the time line being given in the article?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 18, 2010 13:50:44 GMT -8
The beginning of the family tree, or micro evolution is believed to have began about 13,000 years ago. No: "Its trunk, they found, is rooted in the Middle East, which concurs with evidence for the remains of dogs found at sites from 13,000 years ago."Read carefully. The study at hand presents no evidence against the theory of evolution that I could see. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 18, 2010 14:03:42 GMT -8
The beginning of the family tree, or micro evolution is believed to have began about 13,000 years ago. No: "Its trunk, they found, is rooted in the Middle East, which concurs with evidence for the remains of dogs found at sites from 13,000 years ago."Read carefully. The study at hand presents no evidence against the theory of evolution that I could see. Please understand that this thread was not intending to challenge evolution. That's a separate discussion that I would be happy to have some other time. My point was to address a historical time line for micro evolution to take place. Because I believe in a young earth, and a global flood like the one described in Genesis, I have stated that Noah would not be required to have on the Ark various breeds of dogs, but rather one single pair (male and female), and from there we have seen the different breed come about. What I have been told by old earthers, and evolutionists is that the evolutionary process required for two dogs to produce the various species would take much much much longer than what is being reported in the linked article. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 18, 2010 20:17:09 GMT -8
I've never heard the objection to the young earth position to fixate on dogs.
Dogs have bred so diversely and quickly because of the direct impact of human selection.
Where the young-earther would have trouble would be explaining, for instance, how all the different kinds of bears (polar bear, grizzly, black, etc..) could "micro-evolve" in merely thousands of years through no intelligent process.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 18, 2010 20:32:03 GMT -8
I never said anyone was fixated on this topic. I was simply asking for your response to the article. If I recall correctly it is something that you have specifically mentioned in the past as a difficulty for a young earther. I could be mistaken, perhaps it was someone else. As far as your question about bears would go, I would guess that if it were impossible for a Polar Bear, and Grizzly Bear to evolve on a micro scale in 6-8 thousand years, then perhaps God allowed both on Ark. Not really much of a problem me, and I certainly would not fixate on it.  |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 19, 2010 4:54:21 GMT -8
Please understand that this thread was not intending to challenge evolution. Okay. However, your statement... "but even 13,000 years seems to be in conflict with what evolutionists have told me in the past. That being, that it would take 10's of thousands, if not 100's of thousands of years for such evolution to transpire." ...is insinuating an inconsistency in the theory of evolution that cannot remain uncorrected. We are not talking about species of their own but about breeds within a species. Especially considering the human influence on the breeding of dogs, the time span we are dealing with here is more than enough to deliver such results. I don't know how qualified the evolutionists you referred to are (are we talking about biologists or laymen who believe in evolution?) but it seems likely to me that there have been misunderstandings in the process of communication. I've already encountered many misconceptions about evolution on this forum by many different persons. And I'm not even trying to pretend that I'm an expert. But a book I can recommend in order to get a better understanding of evolution is "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. Evolutionary biology is his A-Game, no matter how much one might agree or disagree with his conclusions about religion. He can explain these things better than I could. By the way, a discussion between us about evolution in another thread would be pointless because a) none of us is qualified enough on the issue and b) if one side embraces the premisse that everything has been created by an almighty God, it follows that no evidence, not even the most testable and observable evidence, could be persuasive because there is no way to proove that God didn't create everything 30 seconds ago and merely set us up with a memory of before that time. In other words, the God-premisse is unfalsifyable. So I'm going to content myself with raising objections on the evolutionary issue where I believe this has to be done.  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 19, 2010 7:41:20 GMT -8
I know what your saying, and if I were were in your position I would probably react the same way to my post. However, my statement about the time frame was in response to prior conversations that are not recorded here. The fact is I have been told by those who oppose my view of a biblical flood that it is unreasonable to believe that two dogs (generic) could, within such a short time period, produce the various breeds that we see today. I've been told that this would take much longer.
As for evolution itself, it's beginning to be a bit of an embarrassment for the scientific community, and I believe that theory will be abandoned within the next 2 decades.
Frankly, I'm willing to let this rest. I'm starting to care very little.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 19, 2010 8:12:27 GMT -8
As for evolution itself, it's beginning to be a bit of an embarrassment for the scientific community, and I believe that theory will be abandoned within the next 2 decades. Yeah right. And then you woke up and got out of your cave. ;D Creationists have been postulating such over-confident future prospects from the word go. And while the evidence in favor of the theory of evolution is increasing and increasing they bravely keep holding on to their pep talk (as if repetition did anything to the truth of a claim). What about a bet? |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 19, 2010 9:06:04 GMT -8
Why bother? I doubt that in 20 years any of this will seem important to anyone, except for those with an ax to grind. In fact it is hardly seems important now. But I'll tell you what, if it would make you feel better, I'll bet you a dollar. Sadly though, in 20 years the value of that dollar will probably be comparable to today's nickle. Or if you want to bet high stakes perhaps we could wager one day's worth of our governmental rations.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Mar 19, 2010 9:50:55 GMT -8
For the fun of it. How about beer? Will there be beer in the future? If you are right and the theory of evolution won't exist anymore on march 19th of 2030, 1 liter of good German beer (no matter how much it will cost then) is on me and to spice it up, I add the concession that I have been a blind man. And if I win, the same conditions vice versa except for the beer being American. How does that sound? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 19, 2010 10:44:59 GMT -8
OK, first off, Robin, substitute "focus" for "fixate"- I didn't mean something negative by it.
Secondly, how can you say that the theory of "evolution" isn't important, no matter how you feel about it?
I personally have never heard an "old-earther" cite the breeding of dogs as impossibly rapid micro-evolution. Rather, it is the claim that all bears came from one bear in +/- 10,000 years, or all horses, etc..
And the problem with saying that all species of bear were on the ark is that all the species that ever lived on the earth could not have fit on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 19, 2010 12:14:07 GMT -8
Why should I see it as important? It's a scientific theory that has never been proved. It won't change my life or faith one way or the other. I'm just not willing to believe that the theory of evolution is somehow a scientific fact when no such thing has ever been proved. If the scientific community is split on the issue, I see no reason accept the implausible theory that I share a common ancestor with a banana. Evolution still exists as a theory not a fact.
Mo,
Your wager sounds acceptable. I really hope I win, because German beer is far superior to American Beer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 19, 2010 22:07:05 GMT -8
Sure it's changed your life. Darwinian theory has influenced and changed history, from social Darwinism to how Christians approach apologetics to advances in medicine to Hitler's master race theories and the list goes on and on. Historically, it hasn't been an insignificant theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 21, 2010 19:06:56 GMT -8
As I've stated elsewhere, I think the "appearance of age" theory postulates trickery contrary to God's nature. But we've discussed that elsewhere....
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 21, 2010 22:00:47 GMT -8
Sure it's changed your life. Darwinian theory has influenced and changed history, from social Darwinism to how Christians approach apologetics to advances in medicine to Hitler's master race theories and the list goes on and on. Historically, it hasn't been an insignificant theory. The fact remains that I'll go on living my life the same way regardless of what people believe about evolution. also, I think that those who see evolution as an apologetics hurdle or benefit are focusing on the wrong things. Sadly I think too many Christians are drawn into supporting the theory of evolution because they are overly concerned with what others think of them. (I'm not pointing fingers at any specifically, but I'm simply making a general observation.) I have more to say on the bear issue that you mentioned earlier, but I will get to that in the near future. I did want to point out that you yourself are engaging in tactics that you have criticized in the past. Instead of making a positive case for a localized flood (the position you hold), which would allow for Noah not to have all kinds of animals on the ark, to have decided instead to attack the global flood young earth theory by using what you believe to be an obstacle. Perhaps I could ask you to give a positive case and evidence that Noah had experience a local flood that would cover the region for 150 days while covering the mountains by 20 feet, instead of criticizing the global flood theory. By the way, I would like to point out that the kept coming for 40 days. Also, the middle east is not a bowl, and the water would drain through the valleys, and plains with in a few days on not 110 days. However, this is for another thread. |
|
