Interesting Genetic Research Published on Dog Evolution (page 12)

cofty

The problem is you need to show the time when N0 wolves had that gene sequence.

They still don't.

Domestic dogs do.

THAT'S THE POINT!

DATA-DOG

Cofty said " Come back in another 500 000 years and maybe the wolf and the dog will have diverged enough to impress you. "

How convenient since no one present will be alive to prove or disprove it. The theory of evolution came first, then the attempt to find any link between chimp and man. Evolution starts with a bias, just like any other human theory. I chose not to believe scientific dogma. DF me if you want.

JGnat, Charts prove nothing. Neither does this chart:

Or this chart:

I suppose this must be taken as fact:

I find this more likely....

cofty

DATA-DOG - we don't need to wait for wolves and dogs to diverge.

Right now we have overwhelming amounts of evidence to prove that every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

I am not talking about minor changes I mean major transitions from the sea to land - and back again in the case of the cetaceans.

What books on evolution, written by evolutionary biologists - have you read Data Dog?

Did you read the evidence in the Common Ancestry thread?

Surely you are not arguing against something you actually know nothing about are you? It sounds a lot like it.

jgnat

Ummm, the finches are all different.

Here's a phylogenetic tree of life that is based on genetic coding. I agree, the chart on it's own doesn't mean much, but you are free to re-read the conclusion of the scientists who made the tree. I'm much more ready to accept their findings at face value.

http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/127.full

EntirelyPossible

How convenient since no one present will be alive to prove or disprove it.

How convenient we are here to use science to be able to build the chart based on the past few hundred million years. Curious, why don't you attempt to educate yourself on the things you reject?

Deputy Dog

They still don't.

I don't see that stated in the article. They only tested 12. And that's my point. If they test a wolf that has the sequence will they now say he's a wolf/dog cross? That gene may be dominant in the wild because of diet, but the recessive side may have showed up at times (many times) when wolves are forced to change their diet.

cofty

DD - you missed this....

DATA-DOG - we don't need to wait for wolves and dogs to diverge.

Right now we have overwhelming amounts of evidence to prove that every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.

I am not talking about minor changes I mean major transitions from the sea to land - and back again in the case of the cetaceans.

What books on evolution, written by evolutionary biologists - have you read Data Dog?

Did you read the evidence in the Common Ancestry thread?

Surely you are not arguing against something you actually know nothing about are you? It sounds a lot like it.

TD

we don't need to wait for wolves and dogs to diverge

Yes. There's overwhelming evidence of divergence to the point of genetic incompatibility. Hybridization alone (e.g. Between sheep and goats and other equally unlikely pairings) has always impressed me.

It's even more striking with plants (Which are more up my alley anyway)

Deputy Dog

Surely you are not arguing against something you actually know nothing about are you? It sounds a lot like it.

I work with dogs every day. You can believe what ever you like, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I just don't see much here, it looks to me like there is more opinion here than science. That's all.

cofty

I'm no longer talking about dogs DD.

I asked...

What books on evolution, written by evolutionary biologists - have you read?

Did you read the evidence in the Common Ancestry thread?

Interesting Genetic Research Published on Dog Evolution

Share this