"it will be a blow to proponents of intelligent design"

[Phenomanul]

I just dont get how people cant look at what we have done with dogs in the last 4,000 years and see how evolution happens.

And I know you are going to throw the "they arent a different species" thing at me but... duh?

yeah they are.

Great Dane is not the same species as a Chihuahua.

"Well yes it is"

Technically yes.

But a wolf is not the same species as a dog and they can breed with chihuaha's.

An african hunting dog is not the same species as a wolf and they can have fertile offspring.

Don't use science against science to try to disprove evolution.

It doesn't work.

You can say that there is a huge invisible Gorrilla in the room, and Science can't disprove that. That's faith.

But you can't overcome the huge amount of evidence that supports evolution.

That being said, this discovery changes nothing in the debate. It does nothing but give people who believe in evolution a window into how some vertibrates came to live on land. It does nothing for invertibrates.

Plus... you can't argue with faith. Why bother?

Not a personal thing or an insult, but your understanding of genetics is flawed.

The 'blueprints' for canines are so broad that the manifested phenotypes we see in various dog breeds are radically different... the fact that they remain interfertile poses a huge hole in your claim that speciation is being observed.

It's a semantical problem on the taxonomical definition of the word itself.

[Sec24Row7]

A "Breed" is a term used only in reference to animals that have been created by man through selective breeding.

If we were to happen upon an island and discover two animals as dissimilar as chihuahuas and great danes running around for the first time, they would be classified as different species.

Not a personal thing or an insult, but your understanding of genetics is flawed.

The 'blueprints' for canines are so broad that the manifested phenotypes we see in various dog breeds are radically different... the fact that they remain interfertile poses a huge hole in your claim that speciation is being observed.

It's a semantical problem on the taxonomical definition of the word itself.

I can just hear Clinton saying "It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

Please don't talk to me about flawed when you are getting junk science and cut and paste arguments from bull christian publications.

[Phenomanul]

A "Breed" is a term used only in reference to animals that have been created by man through selective breeding.

If we were to happen upon an island and discover two animals as dissimilar as chihuahuas and great danes running around for the first time, they would be classified as different species.

And.... that would make the classification correct. I see. We base it on looks... not genetic content.


Well anyways, I'll have to come back later I have a meeting...

[smeagol]

If someone believes the Big Bang, Evolution, or any other scientific theory is the work of God - then I can certainly understand that. But if one is going to challenge science, say that God put dinosaur bones on Earth to test our faith, say that the great flood carved out the Grand Canyon, and evolution can't be real because there are still monkeys (my all time favorite evolution criticism)... then you are pretty much fighting an uphill battle. Check that, you are climbing up Everest in flip flops with a rubber band gun against the 101st.

[Sec24Row7]

Well duh? Yeah! That's what we have always done! Dogs are all closely related. Other animals are very closely related too.

Others are more dissimilar.

That's the way it works.

Don't break the rule. Don't try to use science against itself to disprove evolution.

You can use faith all day long, I can't argue with you. You use science and you are gonna get burned in the long run.

[Spurminator]

It just doesn't matter.

It doesn't.

[boutons_]

"just one facet of the problem.'

your assumption being that other facets are not addressable and solvable.

I love the way creationists/IDers prefer the universe to be static and fixed per Genesis, that man's quest for knowedge of the Universe is pre-empted from discovering, piling up more data that ridicules Genesis as a 6-day-wonder fairy tale.

[Phenomanul]

"just one facet of the problem.'

your assumption being that other facets are not addressable and solvable.

I love the way creationists/IDers prefer the universe to be static and fixed per Genesis, that man's quest for knowedge of the Universe is pre-empted from discovering, piling up more data that ridicules Genesis as a 6-day-wonder fairy tale.

Your linear thinking amazes me.... I guess you never 'evolved' higher logical processes to remove such negativity from your outlook on life.

Spare me your ridicule.

[Phenomanul]

Well duh? Yeah! That's what we have always done! Dogs are all closely related. Other animals are very closely related too.

Others are more dissimilar.

That's the way it works.

Don't break the rule. Don't try to use science against itself to disprove evolution.

You can use faith all day long, I can't argue with you. You use science and you are gonna get burned in the long run.

I highly doubt it.

[Phenomanul]

A "Breed" is a term used only in reference to animals that have been created by man through selective breeding.

If we were to happen upon an island and discover two animals as dissimilar as chihuahuas and great danes running around for the first time, they would be classified as different species.



I can just hear Clinton saying "It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

Please don't talk to me about flawed when you are getting junk science and cut and paste arguments from bull christian publications.

Riddle me this.... Do you consider them bull**** publications because they come from Christians??? Or have you ever actually read them and scrutinized their methods on scientific grounds??

Your previous display of scientific comprehension when it comes to genetics would tell me that you are not qualified to make said assessment.

If you want to talk 'science' with me go for it.... just don't expect me to accept other peoples' points of views if I see inherent flaws with their experimental methods. It's sad that when I point out these flaws you all seem to turn a deaf ear.... or grossly misunderstand the concepts at play (as is the case with the canine example)...

[boutons_]

"from your outlook on life."

bull . My negative outlook on "Christian" people pushing agendas of untruths and intellectual lies to overturn science with creationism/ID has nothing to do with my outlook on life.

What IS fundamentally and evil is "Christians" shoving their primitive, simplistic, dishonest God-and-man-insulting view of cosmology.

[smeagol]

"from your outlook on life."

bull . My negative outlook on "Christian" people pushing agendas of untruths and intellectual lies to overturn science with creationism/ID has nothing to do with my outlook on life.

What IS fundamentally and evil is "Christians" shoving their primitive, simplistic, dishonest God-and-man-insulting view of cosmology.

Are you a:

a) Christian

b) Agnostic

c) Athiest, or

d) None of the above

[Phenomanul]

"from your outlook on life."

bull . My negative outlook on "Christian" people pushing agendas of untruths and intellectual lies to overturn science with creationism/ID has nothing to do with my outlook on life.

What IS fundamentally and evil is "Christians" shoving their primitive, simplistic, dishonest God-and-man-insulting view of cosmology.

I've made no attempt to do either of these... or write policy for these.

Your anger is misplaced if you are directing it at me.

Simmer down.

[Sec24Row7]

It's bull because I make a valid point, then you take your cut and paste christian magazine answer that is scientifically invalid and tell me how dumb I am.

Intelligent D doesnt have a scientific leg to stand on.

Stick to faith.

And what exactly is wrong with my assesment of dog breeds? Please Kimosabe splain it to me.

[Phenomanul]

It's bull because I make a valid point, then you take your cut and paste christian magazine answer that is scientifically invalid and tell me how dumb I am.

Intelligent D doesnt have a scientific leg to stand on.

Stick to faith.

I have on occasion posted some articles that support my point of view... I always say when I do cause I have no need to hide the source....

Most of my posts however, come from my own rationalization and are supported by concepts learned through several years of study.... you do realize my Master's degree was obtained in the field of Biogenetic Engineering? Though I may not work in that field presently, I am more than capable of presenting or generating opinions on the subject matter at hand. And though they may be opinions... as stated earlier, they have sufficient backing from the concepts I learned in said field.

Just for the record, I also have degrees in:

Chemical Engineering
Probability and Statistics
Physics

and a minor in Music.

All obtained at Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology (M.I.T.)

And what exactly is wrong with my assesment of dog breeds? Please Kimosabe splain it to me.

That you are claiming that they are different species while acknowledging the fact that they are interfertile. I don't believe that to be a congruent argument... but again, that disparity is found in the definition of the term 'species' itself... The Clinton reference was funny, but irrelevant and non-applicable.

Evolutionary proponents assume that the Bible has to be anachronistically bound to modern taxidermic classes and then try to pass off observable 'evolutionary' processes as speciation. Doing so, in their view, fundamentally exposes the Bible as imiscible with science because said processes were never mentioned.... and because *gasp* it is obvious and infinitely more illogical to believe that organisms were created at the mercy of the Designer's whim and creativity. That part coming from faith of course.

I've said this before and I'll say it again... 'Evolution' cannot attempt to describe the divergent processes that lead to speciation without inherently addressing the Origin of Life.... It doesn't work that way. True, science has succesfully described how species have adaptated in order to survive in an ever-changing environment. To then infer that this process started in pool of chemicals requires insurmountable odds to be broken not to mention the fact that this theory breaks a major thermodynamic law not observed in any other natural and 'unguided' process since... astronomy and quantum physics included. The odds themselves would require as much faith on your part to believe them as my faith in a Creator. But that is an intangible and highly difficult concept to assess...

Adaptation and speciation are two separate processes with similar if not identical traits but with drastically different implications (regarding the veracity of a GOD-created universe)... Both processes can be observed, and both processes can seemingly be tested. I acknowledge the existence of 'adaptation' but I don't accept the mainstream conclusions that are drawn from the data in support of speciation. Again, an altered form of the term species is almost always used in order to come to said conclusions, and inferences from the fossil record are as subjectable to experimentation as the belief that Jesus walked on water... or that a Spaghetti monster will someday rise out of the earth... having tangible matter does not allow me to infer intangible processes.

One must realize of course that the Bible was never meant to scientifically describe or even propose the processes by which GOD created the universe.... Biblical prose therefore should never be conveyed or quoted on scientific merits as it is completely historical, poetic and theological in essence. To hold this argument against the Bible however and deny any scientific merit to be implied by its context as a way of rendering the book's message useless is as logical as trying to suggest that all written do ents need explain all physical, atmospheric, geological, and biological facets of the story... literary works not conveying said information would always be scientifically incorrect by default...

How's this for an afterthought... take any two healthy humans... No matter the race their DNA is 99.99% identical....

Surprisingly, from an evolutionary perspective, canines (wolfs, dogs, dingoes, hyenas, foxes, coyotes, etc...) have the same genetic conformity among themselves... 99.99%

What we observe as huge phenotypic differences among the breeds are in fact minor changes on a both-grand-and-finite genetic scale that we can't let ourselves be swayed by looks alone. The genetic reserves along with the phenotype are what truly defines a species... not the phenotype alone.

I encourage you to read the following article... not one 'religious' word is ever used or implied... you draw your own conclusions...

http://www.theapologiaproject.org/Reflections%20on%20Human%20Origins.pdf#search='per cent%20similarity%20chimpanzee%20human%20DNA'

[Sec24Row7]

Surprisingly, from an evolutionary perspective, canines (wolfs, dogs, dingoes, hyenas, foxes, coyotes, etc...) have the same genetic conformity among themselves... 99.99%

I scanned this... going to the game so I don't have time really to read the whole thing now.

I will tell you that Hyenas are more closely related to Cats than they are to dogs.

Guess you didn't know that... oops.

the 99.9% conformity is pretty misleading too considering that people have over 90% conformity with the Galapagos tortoise.

[Phenomanul]

Surprisingly, from an evolutionary perspective, canines (wolfs, dogs, dingoes, hyenas, foxes, coyotes, etc...) have the same genetic conformity among themselves... 99.99%

I scanned this... going to the game so I don't have time really to read the whole thing now.

I will tell you that Hyenas are more closely related to Cats than they are to dogs.

Guess you didn't know that... oops.

the 99.9% conformity is pretty misleading too considering that people have over 90% conformity with the Galapagos tortoise.

Read the article... unless you can assure me that the Galapagos tortoise figure is not from the random splicing recombination method then I would say the 90% value is inherently flawed...

Anyways with regards to the hyenas... you are correct... I got a little too carried away with the keyboard. From a genetic standpoint the difference in chromosome numbers between canines and hyenas would negate any positive inter-fertilization between the species.

[Sec24Row7]

Well I read the article... or the parts I could stomach.

Edit:

I wrote a long deal and was kinda mean. Let's just agree to disagree.

I don't agree with the analysis of how DNA similarity is tested, and I don't see the relevance or "spookyness" of human intelligence vs other specialized tools in the wild.

New Question:

How old is earth?