and
>The point is that knowing from the fossil record that the speciation
>event(s), that "originated" the dog "probably somewhere in Eurasia
>12,000 to 14,000 years ago", tells us nothing about the speed of
>that "speciation event(s)". Like all new species, they appear in
>the fossil record "all at once and `fully formed.' " (Gould S.J,
>"The Panda's Thumb", 1980, p150). Your imaginary "creationist"
>therefore is quite entitled to believe that the dog originated
>supernaturally and instantaneously, because: a) that is precisely
>what the fossil record shows; and b) for the last "10,000 years",
>despite some intensive selective breeding and an unusually plastic
>gene-pool, the dog has shown not the slightest sign of changing into
>a new species-canis familiaris has steadfastly remained canis
>familiaris!
>God bless.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. Another
gentleman didn't understand it either and we had quite a private discussion
about it.
First, no one is denying that dogs came from wolves. But we know that from
history. Suppose all you had were the bones and the bones were really old.
Suppose further you didn't know the history of the dog. In such a case, you
would have difficulty saying that a chihuahua is related to a St. Bernard.
The bone shapes are quite different the ratios of various skeletal
measurments are quite different. One might note that they are related but
the same species? Without prior knowledge, I doubt that any future person,
creationist or evolutionists would place them in the same species. REMEMBER
when RESPONDING TO THIS THAT THE HISTORY OF THE DOG IS UNKNOWN TO THEM. Put
your self in that position.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm