Re: Are Dog Breeds Actually Different Species?: Scientific American

Hey Brandon,

Thought I’d send a few thoughts about that article, on the off chance that you might actually welcome a little conversation... :)

Creationists argue that speciation has never been seen.

The taxonomy of organisms is somewhat subjective.  Scientists don’t always agree on how organisms ought to be classified.  What does he mean by saying creationists argue that speciation has never been seen?  Creationists have no problem with variation within a kind, such as all the different sorts of canines.  It appears that the author wants to use the word speciation (in regard to the wide variety of dog breeds) in a way that misleads people into thinking that creationists do not believe that variation and adaptation occur.  

For that matter, how does the author define ‘evolution’?  If he’s merely defining it as ‘genetic change’, as the genetics book you recommended to me does, that definition is so broad that it would cover almost anything, including such things as variations in eye color, hair coat, or beak size.  Again, creationists are fine with the idea of adaptation and variation within a kind.  What they have a problem with is the idea that one kind can morph into another over time— say from canine to feline or from amoeba to man.  

Take the many variations of hair texture, length, and color found in canines.  Scientists have found that they all come from variants of three genes.

Just by mixing and matching... these three different genes, we could account for most of the variation that we see in coats in domestic dogs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8224519.stm

In other words, the many variations were developed by mixing and matching genetic material that was already present in the dog genome—no new material evolved.  

Sometimes it would be nice to talk about something else.  I like the debate, but when that’s all we talk about it makes things feel too one-dimensional—there’s more to us than just this.

Susan



On 5/3/11 12:39 PM, "Brandon Meredith" <mathcadd@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-immodest-proposal
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone