Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

OK, let's try to understand exactly what is being said here.

What is the difference between 'potential for diversity' and 'diversity'? Let me give you an example.

Suppose a parent population has a single gene for some protein, and say it is

AGGACTCTTAGATTA

(I just made this up as an example). So, this is a sequence of 15 base pairs shared by *all* members of the ancestral population. The diversity of that ancestral population is low because they all share a single gene.

But, suppose that there are several viable mutations to this gene, say in positions 4, 6, 9, and 12. These mutations are not in the parent population, but are viable if selection pressures are different. This is *potential* diversity.

Now, in the descendant species, those mutations show up. So, the new species has variants

AGGTCTCTTAGATTA
AGGACGCTTAGATTA
AGGACTCTGAGATTA
AGGACTCTTACGTTA

Then, the *potential* diversity in the ancestral species has turned into *actual* diversity in the child species.

This deals with your comment 1. The paper is clear that the ancestral species had *potential* and that dogs have *actual* diversity.

Points 2,3, and 4 were addressed in the paper in the very next sentence. I quote:
"What is the origin of this diversity? We hypothesize that changes in the living conditions of dogs as a result of domestication resulted in the release of selective constraint allowing a faster accumulation of functional (non-silent) genetic diversity in a large array of genes."

In other words, the fact that dogs started living with humans made it so that selection pressures that existed in wolves no longer selected out those variants. This lead to increased diversity in the dog populations. So, again, they are very clear that the actual diversity did not exist in the ancestral population (because it was selected out) while the lack of selection pressures in the domesticated dogs allowed those mutations to stay fixed in the population. That lead to *increased* diversity.

So, your reading that the original population showed actual diversity is directly contradicted by the paper you refer to. Instead, it is clear that dogs have much MORE diversity than did the ancestral wolf population.

Is that more clear now?

Outstanding post.. good analogy with letters of the alphabet. Several points to remember:
1. Genetically, the wolf and the domestic dog are the same. Humans have used more diverse 'selective' pressures, while the wolf just had the environment. Arctic wolves selected white, while others had traits selected by their environmental pressures. But the wolf is just a wild 'version' of a dog. They are all canids, with proven genetic ancestry.
2. Traits get selected from the existing gene pool. Man has used artificial 'selection' to draw out traits that would have been culled by nature.
3. Some obscure traits can be 'bred out' through either natural or artificial selection. There may still be a gene or 2, in the thousands of possibilities, but as a haplotype becomes regionally and reproductively isolated, the dominant traits overwhelm the obscure ones, and no longer are factors, in the gene pool of that particular clade.
4. A trait 'selected' gets more hits, from the slot machine of possibilities, and will cut out the unused traits, until they are functionally non existent.
5. Modern wolves do not carry the original diversity of the entire canid line. We can follow the phylogenetic tree, and see how they have branched into homogeneous morphologies, from selective breeding pressures. One would not expect a modern arctic wolf, for example, to display the variability of all other canids. We would not expect a chihuahua to produce an arctic wolf, nor vice versa. The variability that the ancestral canid had, has been delivered to the various phylogenetic clades. Only if you inject variability from another clade (breed), can you present it's traits as possibilities.
6. Some traits are lost. Sabre toothed cats no longer come up, in the felidae line. Nor do wooly mammoths crop up in elephants. There may be an obscure gene that harkens back to some long forgotten trait, but the odds are against it ever coming up, as the dominant genes from both parents have the most numbers.
I'm not talking about dominant/recessive genes here, though that enters the fray as well.

The alphabet of traits would be like having all 26 letters, with thousands of some, and only a few of others. The parents deliver half of their genes, and more of the obscure, unselected traits fall into obscurity, and extinction.

The wolf does not deliver any chihuahua traits, nor does the St. Barnard display Mexican Grey Wolf traits. All of the breeds have become isolated, through selection, into their respective morphologies.

Only the ANCESTRAL canid had all the variability we see, and perhaps some that is lost. The further we get to the tips of the tree, the LESS DIVERSITY we can get, observe, or expect. That is observable, repeatable, science. There is no mechanism for 'creating' diversity, new traits, or genetic complexity. Organisms DEVOLVE, over time and isolation, they do not increase in genetic diversity. Macro evolution, and the theory of common descent, has no logical, observable, nor scientific basis. It is contrary to all observed genetics, where obscure genes can only be 'selected' through extreme effort. The observable phenomenon is homogeneity, among an environmentally isolated clade. Less diversity, not more, is all you get.

 

[Polymath257]

Outstanding post.. good analogy with letters of the alphabet. Several points to remember:
1. Genetically, the wolf and the domestic dog are the same. Humans have used more diverse 'selective' pressures, while the wolf just had the environment. Arctic wolves selected white, while others had traits selected by their environmental pressures. But the wolf is just a wild 'version' of a dog. They are all canids, with proven genetic ancestry.
2. Traits get selected from the existing gene pool. Man has used artificial 'selection' to draw out traits that would have been culled by nature.
3. Some obscure traits can be 'bred out' through either natural or artificial selection. There may still be a gene or 2, in the thousands of possibilities, but as a haplotype becomes regionally and reproductively isolated, the dominant traits overwhelm the obscure ones, and no longer are factors, in the gene pool of that particular clade.
4. A trait 'selected' gets more hits, from the slot machine of possibilities, and will cut out the unused traits, until they are functionally non existent.
5. Modern wolves do not carry the original diversity of the entire canid line. We can follow the phylogenetic tree, and see how they have branched into homogeneous morphologies, from selective breeding pressures. One would not expect a modern arctic wolf, for example, to display the variability of all other canids. We would not expect a chihuahua to produce an arctic wolf, nor vice versa. The variability that the ancestral canid had, has been delivered to the various phylogenetic clades. Only if you inject variability from another clade (breed), can you present it's traits as possibilities.
6. Some traits are lost. Sabre toothed cats no longer come up, in the felidae line. Nor do wooly mammoths crop up in elephants. There may be an obscure gene that harkens back to some long forgotten trait, but the odds are against it ever coming up, as the dominant genes from both parents have the most numbers.
I'm not talking about dominant/recessive genes here, though that enters the fray as well.

The alphabet of traits would be like having all 26 letters, with thousands of some, and only a few of others. The parents deliver half of their genes, and more of the obscure, unselected traits fall into obscurity, and extinction.

The wolf does not deliver any chihuahua traits, nor does the St. Barnard display Mexican Grey Wolf traits. All of the breeds have become isolated, through selection, into their respective morphologies.

Only the ANCESTRAL canid had all the variability we see, and perhaps some that is lost. The further we get to the tips of the tree, the LESS DIVERSITY we can get, observe, or expect. That is observable, repeatable, science. There is no mechanism for 'creating' diversity, new traits, or genetic complexity. Organisms DEVOLVE, over time and isolation, they do not increase in genetic diversity. Macro evolution, and the theory of common descent, has no logical, observable, nor scientific basis. It is contrary to all observed genetics, where obscure genes can only be 'selected' through extreme effort. The observable phenomenon is homogeneity, among an environmentally isolated clade. Less diversity, not more, is all you get.

The problem is that this is specifically what the article you point to denies. The diversity increased as the selection pressure for dogs decreased due to domestication. This allowed mutations that appeared to remain in the population. And *that* is an increase of diversity.

So, in answer to your points above:

1. That means that the overall diversity of the canid lineages has increased since the domestication of dogs. There are variants of genes that exist today in the population that did not exist before that domestication. It is this increased diversity that is the whole point of the article, after all.

2. You seem to neglect the point that mutations happen all the time. In the original population of wolves, those mutations were selected out because of selection pressure and did not remain in the population. Once domenstication of dogs started, however, those selection pressures were removed, meaning that those mutations could remain in the population and, in addition, have further mutations. This means that the resulting population has MORE diversity because the selection pressures were decreased and more variants remained in the population. This is what the paper is all about, after all.

3, 4. You are ignoring the fact that mutations of various types still occur. From simple, point mutations, to gene duplication and subsequent mutation, these increase the diversity of the population. Usually, they are selected out of the population (those that have these mutations die), but with domestication, there were different selection pressures (breeding) that allowed these mutations to stay in the population. This is, in and of itself, an increase of diversity. But, with the existence of these individuals having children, there are now also MORE possibilities for *further* mutations, and that also increases the diversity of the population. Again, this is all explained in your article and is the whole point of the article.

5. This is directly contradicted by the article. In fact, the article specifically points out that the current wolf population is almost identical to the ancestral one and has similar diversity. Once again, you seem to miss the distinction between *potential* diversity (the mutations that could be viable in some environment) and *actual* diversity (those genes that actually exist in the population at some time).

6. Yes, genes do get lost also. Some populations go extinct. But mutations continue to occur in those that survive. It is mutation that increases the range of variation in the population, restoring it when it has been decreased. Whether the mutations remain depends on the selection pressures.

Finally, I have given a couple of the mechanisms for increases of diversity. But let's be clear what diversity means. The diversity of a particular gene is the range of similar genes (doing the same job with minor differences) in the population). Overall diversity means the range of genes in the population.

Now, genes are just stretches of DNA. A mutation is a change in some stretch of DNA, either a point mutation, a duplication, an insertion, a deletion, or a change in location (which can affect transcription, for example).

THIS IS THE MECHANISM FOR NEW DIVERSITY. I tis established, documented, and common.

If you say that the diversity of the ancestral wolf population contained all the current variant, you are essentially claiming that ALL the genes we see in modern populations already existed in the ancestral one. In other words, some loci in the original population would have *hundreds* of different variants of a particular gene, most of them unexpressed. In the model you proposed, it seems that some of these variants 'drop out' and others are expressed.

Could you detail the mechanism for this dropping out and new expression? It doesn't seem to be consistent with how we know genes propagate.

"
The alphabet of traits would be like having all 26 letters, with thousands of some, and only a few of others. The parents deliver half of their genes, and more of the obscure, unselected traits fall into obscurity, and extinction."

Except that just isn't how it works. The parents simply don't have the genes for all the variants for all possible descendants. They have a few variants, but not nearly the range that exists in subsequent populations.

 

[usfan]

Alternatively, what sort of evidence would be acceptable for showing that modern traits in dogs did not exist in the ancestral population? Would we need to do a genetic analysis from ancient wolves and how many such would be required for you to be convinced a trait didn't exist in the ancestral population?

Eventually, we may map the genome of some older canids, to see how it has branched out. We've done that some with humans, and corrected many misconceptions and false assumptions.
Neanderthal, for example, was once thought of as a genetically distinct ancestor of humans, regionally evolved like other people groups. Now we know that neanderthal was just a tribe of humans, with distinct morphological features, like all isolated people groups have (and all organisms in general). They could (and did) interbreed with other tribes, and their mtDNA flags show them as the descendants of the earliest humans. It is artistic license that portrays them as ape-like brutes, dragging knuckles and covered with hair. That could be done for some modern tribes, or George Bush, to show similarity with a chimp.

Why is it not enough to show that the dog traits don't exist anywhere in the modern wolf population? Or where we can point to when the trait was first expressed? Would you need a genetic analysis of the parents of the dog where the trait was first expressed?

We would not expect a breed or clade to show more diversity, as it settles into morphological homogeneity, due to environmental or artificial selective pressures. The wolf does not display the traits of coyotes, dingos, or great danes, no more than those breeds show traits of the wolf. And there are different wolf breeds, or clades. The difference between an arctic wolf and the Mexican Grey is minor, genetically, as it is with coyotes, or German shepherds. Common traits can suggest a common ancestry, but only the hard evidence of the mtDNA provides compelling science for that conclusion.

Felidae has been the target of much concern, regarding decreasing diversity. The cheetah has bee studied a lot, and is the poster child for dead end genetic diversity.

It seemed as though the ancestors of modern cheetahs had offloaded most of their endemic genetic variability, leaving a species dramatically reduced in genetic diversity.

Conservation Genetics of the Cheetah: Lessons Learned and New Opportunities

This is observable, repeatable science. Organisms devolve, and reach a dead end of diversity, as they reach the tips of their phylogenetic tree. They do not conjure up new traits, they become stifled in morphological homogeneity, and if their environment changes. they go extinct.

 

[usfan]

Sucking up to the mods i see. I thought most of your opponents were equally civil compared to Polymath. So this seems like a "stealth" attack against everyone else, while being very careful not to anger staff...

I did not realize poly was a mod.. i see that, now, but it is not a factor in my reply. I have always responded civilly, to civil replies. I only bare my teeth to hostile hecklers, like you illustrate.

don't care if this gets moderated, but here's my opinion of you: You're a dishonest, hypocritical rhetorician with zero content in your output. Only quantity. And anyone with even an ounce of decency should consider you nothing better than a pathetic piece of discarded rags.

..probably good for me that you are not a mod. I've been in forums where intolerance and dogmatism rules, and i don't usually last long. Echo chambers are not my thing..

Notice that the variation has *accumulated* and was NOT there originally.

That is 'hypothesized.' They clearly state they don't really know, from evidence, and the actual evidence suggests the variability was already there.

Quotes from the canidae study:
We hypothesize that changes in the living conditions of dogs as a result of domestication resulted in the release of selective constraint

1. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population.
2. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.
3. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old..
4. selection acts upon existing variability..

Now, you are correct in pointing out the HYPOTHESES and speculations of the writers of the study, but the actual evidence does not compel their conclusion. It is a philosophical conjecture, not compelled by the facts.

What people believe is up to them. But the facts of this mtDNA analysis do not compel a conclusion of common descent. It shows a tree of canidae, with decreading diversity, along the different clades. Wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs all descended from the ancestral canid, and there is no suggestion or mechanism defined of 'diversity creating' possibility. The opposite is pointed out, as, selection acts upon existing variability..

That is the factual conclusion of this study, even if they fill it with disclaimers and assertions of belief. They must toe the line with the belief in common descent, even if the facts imply otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

Eventually, we may map the genome of some older canids, to see how it has branched out. We've done that some with humans, and corrected many misconceptions and false assumptions.
Neanderthal, for example, was once thought of as a genetically distinct ancestor of humans, regionally evolved like other people groups. Now we know that neanderthal was just a tribe of humans, with distinct morphological features, like all isolated people groups have (and all organisms in general). They could (and did) interbreed with other tribes, and their mtDNA flags show them as the descendants of the earliest humans. It is artistic license that portrays them as ape-like brutes, dragging knuckles and covered with hair. That could be done for some modern tribes, or George Bush, to show similarity with a chimp.

Yes, popular depictions of Neanderthals are poor, at best. This goes double for those more than a decade or two old. The Neanderthals were a subspecies, not a distinct species.

On the other hand, Homo Erectus was an ancestral species for both and quite distinct.

We would not expect a breed or clade to show more diversity, as it settles into morphological homogeneity, due to environmental or artificial selective pressures. The wolf does not display the traits of coyotes, dingos, or great danes, no more than those breeds show traits of the wolf.

And neither did the ancestral population. Those traits are ALL new. That shows *increased* diversity.

And there are different wolf breeds, or clades. The difference between an arctic wolf and the Mexican Grey is minor, genetically, as it is with coyotes, or German shepherds. Common traits can suggest a common ancestry, but only the hard evidence of the mtDNA provides compelling science for that conclusion.

But it is interesting that the myDNA and the comparative anatomy trees are mostly compatible. Even myDNA isn't perfect, though. It is very good, but has its own peculiarities.

Felidae has been the target of much concern, regarding decreasing diversity. The cheetah has bee studied a lot, and is the poster child for dead end genetic diversity.

It seemed as though the ancestors of modern cheetahs had offloaded most of their endemic genetic variability, leaving a species dramatically reduced in genetic diversity.

Yes, cheetahs went through a severe population bottleneck fairly recently. Such bottlenecks *do* decrease diversity until there has been enough time for mutations to restore it again.

Conservation Genetics of the Cheetah: Lessons Learned and New Opportunities

This is observable, repeatable science. Organisms devolve, and reach a dead end of diversity, as they reach the tips of their phylogenetic tree. They do not conjure up new traits, they become stifled in morphological homogeneity, and if their environment changes. they go extinct.

No, it is repeatable, observable science that mutations happen even in stable populations and serve to increase diversity. That diversity is then acted upon by selection pressures. When those selection pressures change, the population diversity can change along with it, if the change isn't too fact to overwhelm the mutation rate.

The 'tip of the phylogenetic tree' are simply the currently existing species. The diversity changes as we go through time, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing, depending on selection pressures.

 

[usfan]

This is perhaps the biggest conflict or inconsistency with the UCD theory:

How do you even get 'low levels of diversity', if an organism is constantly creating new genetic information?

If the assumptions of common descent were true, there would be new traits and variation constantly added, and haplogroups becoming more diverse, instead of less. But that is contrary to what we actually observe.

 

[Polymath257]

That is 'hypothesized.' They clearly state they don't really know, from evidence, and the actual evidence suggests the variability was already there.

Quotes from the canidae study:
We hypothesize that changes in the living conditions of dogs as a result of domestication resulted in the release of selective constraint

You are mireading what they said. They are proposing the *mechanism* for the *observed* increases of diversity.

1. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population.
2. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.
3. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old..
4. selection acts upon existing variability..

Now, you are correct in pointing out the HYPOTHESES and speculations of the writers of the study, but the actual evidence does not compel their conclusion. It is a philosophical conjecture, not compelled by the facts.

The above points have already been addressed. The *hypothesis* in the article is NOT about the increase of diversity, which was observed. It is about the mechanism of such increase. That mechanism is the different selection pressure that domesticared dogs experienced versus the ancestral population In fact, you can see that in the *title* of the article: "
Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication"

What people believe is up to them. But the facts of this mtDNA analysis do not compel a conclusion of common descent.

Well, the article shows the common descent of the canid lines.

It shows a tree of canidae, with decreading diversity, along the different clades.

No, that is specifically NOT what the article shows. It shows an *increase* of diversity after domestication and *proposes* a mechanism for that increase in the decrease of selection pressures due to domestication.

Wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs all descended from the ancestral canid, and there is no suggestion or mechanism defined of 'diversity creating' possibility. The opposite is pointed out, as, selection acts upon existing variability..

And that variability can increase when selection pressures are removed, allowing for variants that would have been selected out to remain in the population. Again, explaining that new diversity is the point of the article.

That is the factual conclusion of this study, even if they fill it with disclaimers and assertions of belief. They must toe the line with the belief in common descent, even if the facts imply otherwise.

And you are misreading what the article actually says. Selection acts on existing diversity. But a reduction of selection pressure allows for mutations that would usually be selected against to continue to exist in the population, allowing for *increased* diversity. Again the *whole point* of the article: to explain that increased diversity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Eventually, we may map the genome of some older canids, to see how it has branched out. We've done that some with humans, and corrected many misconceptions and false assumptions.

Yes, your false assumptions and misconceptions based on your religious agenda.

Neanderthal, for example, was once thought of as a genetically distinct ancestor of humans, regionally evolved like other people groups. Now we know that neanderthal was just a tribe of humans, with distinct morphological features, like all isolated people groups have (and all organisms in general). They could (and did) interbreed with other tribes, and their mtDNA flags show them as the descendants of the earliest humans. It is artistic license that portrays them as ape-like brutes, dragging knuckles and covered with hair. That could be done for some modern tribes, or George Bush, to show similarity with a chimp.

This is a foolish and very very confusing concerning how science views the evolution of humanoids including the Neanderthals and other relatives of human ancestors. There is nothing in contemporary science describes the ancestors of humans as ape-like brutes dragging their knuckles.

We would not expect a breed or clade to show more diversity, as it settles into morphological homogeneity, due to environmental or artificial selective pressures. The wolf does not display the traits of coyotes, dingos, or great danes, no more than those breeds show traits of the wolf. And there are different wolf breeds, or clades. The difference between an arctic wolf and the Mexican Grey is minor, genetically, as it is with coyotes, or German shepherds. Common traits can suggest a common ancestry, but only the hard evidence of the mtDNA provides compelling science for that conclusion.

Felidae has been the target of much concern, regarding decreasing diversity. The cheetah has bee studied a lot, and is the poster child for dead end genetic diversity.

It seemed as though the ancestors of modern cheetahs had offloaded most of their endemic genetic variability, leaving a species dramatically reduced in genetic diversity.

Conservation Genetics of the Cheetah: Lessons Learned and New Opportunities

This is observable, repeatable science. Organisms devolve, and reach a dead end of diversity, as they reach the tips of their phylogenetic tree. They do not conjure up new traits, they become stifled in morphological homogeneity, and if their environment changes. they go extinct.

You reference to the cheetah is misrepresented by your agenda, and in and of itself is not representative of the science of evolution. It is only a study of the genetic problems of extinction.

 

[Polymath257]

This is perhaps the biggest conflict or inconsistency with the UCD theory:

How do you even get 'low levels of diversity', if an organism is constantly creating new genetic information?

If the assumptions of common descent were true, there would be new traits and variation constantly added, and haplogroups becoming more diverse, instead of less. But that is contrary to what we actually observe.

If changes in the environment are fast enough to overwhelm the mutation rate, the overall diversity can decrease. But, under normal conditions, that is not the case.

It has been the case for some population bottlenecks, where species almost went extinct (due to changing environment), like in cheetahs.

And we *do* see more diversity over time. For example in the carnivore line, we go from the initial croedonts to having canids, felids, ursines, etc. Those variants did not exist when the creodonts did, but evolved out of the croedont line.

So, in answer to your questions, the *mechanism* of increased diversity has been pointed out: mutation along with changes of selection pressure.

We have actual evidence for increased diversity from the canid article itself. We have proposed explanations for that diversity in the canid article itself.

We have examples from paleontology showing increases of diversity over time in many different lines.

So, we have mechanism, evidence, observability, repeatability.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is perhaps the biggest conflict or inconsistency with the UCD theory:

How do you even get 'low levels of diversity', if an organism is constantly creating new genetic information?

If the assumptions of common descent were true, there would be new traits and variation constantly added, and haplogroups becoming more diverse, instead of less. But that is contrary to what we actually observe.

The evidence of the humanoid evolution does indeed show an increase in diversity of subspecies moving out of Africa, It also shows the dominance of homo sapiens dominating and mixing with other subspecies of humanoids, and their resulting extinction, because of a mix of failure to adapt to climate change, and compete with the better adapted homosapiens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is perhaps the biggest conflict or inconsistency with the UCD theory:

How do you even get 'low levels of diversity', if an organism is constantly creating new genetic information?

If the assumptions of common descent were true, there would be new traits and variation constantly added, and haplogroups becoming more diverse, instead of less. But that is contrary to what we actually observe.

That is easy to answer. Isolation of populations occur quite often . A small isolated group will have less diversity than a large group. But if that isolated group thrives. Let's say there is a minor migration across a temporary landbridge. And I can site specific examples of those. And a small population crosses that bridge. They will have less diversity by just the fact of their small numbers than the larger population that they were part of. That population will have a "low level of diversity". In fact there is a name for this process it is called the founder effect. And it is also closely related to the concept of a population bottleneck:

Bottlenecks and founder effects

At any rate, now we have a small population of low diversity. That can even become a large population of low diversity. If conditions are right. But one thing that will happen to that new populaiton is that as time goes on its diversity will increase using the processes that @Polymath257 already explained to you.

The first step in speciation, which has been observed again and again is isolation. And like it or not by definition speciation is macro-evolution. That macro-evolution has been observed so often and is just part of evolution is why the term has been largely abandoned. It is a redundant phrase.

 

[Bear Wild]

You are mireading what they said. They are proposing the *mechanism* for the *observed* increases of diversity.


The above points have already been addressed. The *hypothesis* in the article is NOT about the increase of diversity, which was observed. It is about the mechanism of such increase. That mechanism is the different selection pressure that domesticared dogs experienced versus the ancestral population In fact, you can see that in the *title* of the article: "
Relaxation of selective constraint on dog mitochondrial DNA following domestication"


Well, the article shows the common descent of the canid lines.


No, that is specifically NOT what the article shows. It shows an *increase* of diversity after domestication and *proposes* a mechanism for that increase in the decrease of selection pressures due to domestication.



And that variability can increase when selection pressures are removed, allowing for variants that would have been selected out to remain in the population. Again, explaining that new diversity is the point of the article.



And you are misreading what the article actually says. Selection acts on existing diversity. But a reduction of selection pressure allows for mutations that would usually be selected against to continue to exist in the population, allowing for *increased* diversity. Again the *whole point* of the article: to explain that increased diversity.

Maybe this article will help you understand. Do not mix up phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity. The pure bred dogs show a very strong negative correlation between autozygosity and haplotype diversity. The increase in phenotypic diversity is the result of a small portion of the genetic material and supports our understanding of evolution.
www.journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000451

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really? Show that any of the characteristics of modern dogs existed in the ancestral wolf population.



Except, of course, through the techniques we actually used: selective breeding, which speeds up things considerably.



And is there any evidence such variation existed in the wolf population? Care to do a genetic sweep and see if there are any new/different genes in modern dogs and wolves? I'd bet there are a host of genes we will find in dogs and not in wolves.



Yes, and mutation produces said variability. In a population that is reasonably stable (no selection pressures), variability will increase to the point where it causes an unstable population.



I'd love to see your study of ancient wolf DNA to support this claim.



mtDNA is NOT the basis of variability in dogs, so is irrelevant.

The same responses have been presented numerous times by several people. The points that you are responding to are misinterpreted, but no amount of information has been successful at encouraging a rational re-interpretation based on evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, one has to be very careful when setting up the question. I suppose a creationist can claim that all of the wolves with "doggy genes" could have been forced by God to breed separate from other wolves. But that seems to be a very strange thing for God to do. It is rather obvious that if the genes already existed in the genome, as our creationist seems to believe, that it is very difficult to explain how those genes ended up only in dogs.

He has misinterpreted 'the potential' within the wolf genome to mean that all those genes already existed in the wolf population. The fact that they cannot be found in wolves does not deter him. The fact that new genes have been traced to specific mutations does not deter him. The facts do not deter him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So where is the mastiff/pug/chihuahua/boxer/poodle?

Or Yahweh slaughters them in a flood.

Merely asserting it, or believing strongly, or ridiculing alternate caricatures, does not provide evidence for this belief.
Yet, all you do is assert there is NO EVIDENCE!!! and play Christian martyr, all the while ignoring or finding ways to avoid having to admit there is evidence.

That sums up everything from the creationist side I have seen. Still doesn't know what a haplotype or haplogroup is, just doubles down on some faux personal definition that has no meaning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just want to emphasize this. The difference, in addition to my being a mod, is that I ask what sort of evidence he requires as opposed to just giving it. At this point, that hasn't been answered.

People have asked him to state his case and present the evidence for it. Rather than follow his backward request that was obvious attempt to shift his burden of proof. So far, none of the evidence presented to him has been accepted.

From what I have seen no type or amount of evidence is going to be enough to persuade him that his belief does not trump the evidence showing common descent.

 

[Bear Wild]

I just want to emphasize this. The difference, in addition to my being a mod, is that I ask what sort of evidence he requires as opposed to just giving it. At this point, that hasn't been answered.

He actually asked for any scientific evidence which has been presented over and over. So it was no specified that he needed certain evidence at all. He clearly responds differently to different people including those who started off presenting scientific evidence for the concept of common descent as stated in the beginning. He has ignored or insulted much of the evidence presented as not scientific enough for his scientific mind. What is interesting is the striking difference in which he responded to the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He actually asked for any scientific evidence which has been presented over and over. So it was no specified that he needed certain evidence at all. He clearly responds differently to different people including those who started off presenting scientific evidence for the concept of common descent as stated in the beginning. He has ignored or insulted much of the evidence presented as not scientific enough for his scientific mind. What is interesting is the striking difference in which he responded to the evidence.

And demonstrated that he does not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Which has a deceptively low hurdle to pass:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method."


(sorry, copied off the Google search rather than the article and the bolding reflects the terms I used)

It would seem that almost anything could be scientific evidence by that definition. But one would be mistaken. For example creationists cannot seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs. The problem lies in the need for a refutable concept. All creationists that I have ever met or known of have been afraid to form their idea as a testable hypothesis. No testable hypothesis means no scientific evidence by definition.

At any rate the examples given all are empirical evidence that support the theory of evolution. That means that all of the evidence supplied to date is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. All of our OP has is denial. He cannot even refute that which has been supplied and he often even agrees with it. He then simply handwaves it away falsely claiming it is not evidence when it clearly is.

 

[tas8831]

OK, let's try to understand exactly what is being said here....
Is that more clear now?

Heckling!
Condescension!
Ad hom!

 

[tas8831]

The environment you yourself created.

Post 1: You are all wrong, Deceived and delusional. And you don't understand anything - creationism is TRUE and evolution is the devil!

...

Post 10: Golly, why are you guys so mean to me?