Want to peek at the creation phase? Then vote for Nicky510 at Topwebcomics and see a partial layout sketch of today's comic!
You can start reading The Doggie Adventure from the beginning at this spot.
Want to link it/pass it along to your friends? (I'd love it if you did!) Just click on the Share/Link button below.
Just gotta have today's crowtoon on your wall? Or on your very own self? Then it's time to visit The Nicky Store!
Quite the contrary… Aren't dogs an error in evolution? I think there's a severe downgrade from wolf to dog, at least survival-wise.
Nope. Accelerated evolution driven by man instead of natural pressures. The "best" survive (and the others are culled out by the breeder).
'Unnatural' Selection is an apt name for it. Still provides insurmountable anecdotal evidence for genetic drift. Mutation and divergence is more easily proven though fly breeding though.
I don't want to bark on about it though, have to get back to my Labora(dor)tory.
Actually, the error is in calling this evolution. This is merely an example of how many different shapes canines can be selectively bred into. Each end result is still a dog, and they all can successfully breed with each other. None of these animals have developed into anything other than another type of dog. It still doesn't prove that totally different genres can 'evolve' from a common ancestor, (ie. canines and felines branching from a common species.)
It’s evolution but not speciation.
See the musk ox for the link between the cow and the sheep.
There's a logical fallacy in your argument. Merely because there are different kinds of dogs does not prove or disprove evolution. (For example "If it is raining, then the grass is wet" is the same argument as "If evolution is true, then there would be different kinds of dogs". Well, the grass (or different kinds of dogs) may be wet, but there are other reasons that may be (sprinklers, water balloons, etc.))
If this is so, then prove your point towards the dogs… What other influence is there for there to be many different breeds? Mankind breeds animals for work, ie. bird dogs, and for play ie teacup chihuahua . They may have not naturally evolved, yet it is still evolution.
Evolution by selective breeding is not the same as evolution by nature. Just because we can, and do, use genetics to their full effect in making the "perfect" breed of dog/cat, does not mean that these animals could have also evolved from a Paramecium. It neither proves nor disproves anything, as he said.
Just my two cents.
As Triovana said, I was really referring to the assertion that somehow the differences in dog species directly correlate to proof of (Darwinian) evolution.
Also, hey Tal.
They better pick the Dalmatian. D:<
And yes, Evolution via selective breeding ftw!!!.
evolution by nature functions essentially the same as evolution by breeding. it changes the freaking genetics.
evolution is evolution regardless of how it is administered. the effects and affects might change but it's still the basis of evolution: change and adaptation.
The only real problem I have with this is that there is no Law of Evolution.
It is a theory. It has never been empirically proven.
There´s no Law of Gravity, either.
It is a theory.
Yes there is. It’s been proven conclusively enough for the scientific community as a whole to accept it as a fundamental law.
All theories are empeirically proven lest they be hýpotheses, pretender.
A few quick notes.
Evolutionary theory is an explanation for biodiversity due to natural selection.
When humans breed dogs they are engaging in artificial selection, not natural selection. Evolution doesn't come into it.
Also, scientific theories aren't products of deductive reasoning, so there is no logical fallacy. The logical fallacy as described by David is specific to deductive reasoning. Since the scientific process is wholly inductive, there isn't a problem. However, dog breeds are not good evidence for evolution, just descent with modification.
Also, while there are a few good arguments against "evolution," descent with modification has been documented and tested extensively, and is integral to our modern understanding of Biology. Also, the Law of Gravitation has undergone minor adjustments over time, and it is still considered a "law." The term is not representative of an "airtight" theory, as some would suggest. It's just a arbitrary title for theories. It really has very little to do with it's accepted validity. But theory is more palatable to the under-educated.
There is no such distinction between natural and artificial selection under evolution in which mutants are propagated, and you can’t spell its.
Coren, scientific theories explain WHY something happens. Scientific laws explain HOW. Theories and laws are two totally different things.
Harvey, beautifully said.
But let's all keep in mind that this is a comic strip, not a text book or a scientific journal. Its purpose is to entertain not to educate.
They are different, but the difference is in whether or not it’s been proven. Theories are unproven, while laws are proven.
(whether or not they’re correct is irrelevant)
whether or not [whether]? If you don’t say so yourself, ocsýmòron.
A law is not proven; it’s a givven. All theories are proven.
O.K., first off, great comic. Second, while I know this’ll probably never reach anyone, what Lex is refering to is, in fact, micro evolution, instead of macroevolution. The “theory of evolution” is actually just talking about macro, not micro. Micro has been proven time and again, and can be seen in eavery dog, cat, and other animal like that. Micro simply states that any species can become specialized over a fairly short period of time, and can easily change size, shape, color, pretty much anything, except their base DNA, their actual species. Macro is the idea that one species can, over time, change into a completely different species. That is the one Darwin talks about, and that is the one that has not, in reality, been proven, hence, the continuation of calling it a theory.
Just look at people. Two tall people tend to have tall kids. Two redheads have redheaded kids. Ta-da! Micro-evolution. Preferential traits cause selective breeding resulting in those genes being passed on. Unstable data sections in the DNA results in new variations cropping up all the time to constantly test new combinations for breedability.
To prove macro evolution, you “merely” have to show that the offspring is a new species. However, drawing such a hard line is as good as impossible since an incompatible offspring would never get to breed and continue the line into a new species. An alternative is to track a direct family line (in ANY species) until you can show that the DNA has become incompatible with the original and remains so in offspring. Even in fruit flies, that would take HOW many generations?
Right or wrong, it’s a fascinating subject.
You talk from your arse. All theories are proven already.
You don’t even know what “base DNA” is or what comprises one species from another.
A species becomes separated into two demes so that they cannot breed with each other for hundreds of generations, and the longer they can’t the more likely should they come together again they shall bear birth defects, abortions, and infertile offspring. That is when they are two species. For artificial selection (nothing but the shortcut to natural selection) between two more-different species, degenerative diseases are common–these are seen in wolfdogs, bengals, hinnies, ligers, tigons, wholfins–and between two species with fewer extra kròmosomata, they grow up healthy to adulthood–mules, zorses, and some zebroids–but usually still can’t inbreed. A species’s transcription rate determines its ghenetic drift rate and how swiftly mutations can make racies diverge into species. For mammals, this usually follows glacial waves as they break off into refugia and become nearly extinct. Their newest/youngest species are of the late Pleistocæn, 25,000 to 15,000 years ago. But Google for better clades at breeding and inbreeding, as in the FAQ search above, or for other keywords and you may find this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20425468. It seems their lack of mobility helps them break off easily so they don’t get to interbreed often and wash any new mutations.
I should object to Specious Speciation (2012) written against Speciation FAQ (1995). It quotes how a species is in reproductive isolation, but later objects to how those experiments were not in /complete/ reproductive isolation, whatever that means. To find out whether they were of two distinct species they should artificially mate them, in vivo or in vitro, and see whether their offspring were fertile or viabil; this was beyond their scope or funding. And it says these offspring did not show “significant biological change”, but he can’t know unless he did that experiment. Also, polýploid hýbrids do not represent a collapse in diversity; mutations in them yield new traits not seen in their parents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Hybrid_speciation (citations much newer than 1995).
you all make my brain hurt
*pats Spikey on the head* and says “there there”
Click here to cancel reply.
NAME — Get a Gravatar
EMAIL — Required / not published
NOTE - You can use these tags:<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Powered by WordPress with ComicPress