Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[shunyadragon]

That is the belief. But we are examining the evidence. There is no observable testing to show this as even possible. Genetics and millennia of observation says otherwise. Organisms do NOT increase in diversity, or variability. They decrease. Devolution is all we observe. There is no mechanism for 'creating' new traits, that are not already there in the parent organism. It is an imagined belief, based on 'looks like!' plausibility.

You have only made assertions and presented any scientific refrences to support your assertions based on a religious agenda.

 

[usfan]

So` far you have done nothing but throw turds.

Were those yours?

I throw some back, every now and then, but only if i can pick them up by the clean end..

But that does explain the obsession with e.coli, earlier..

 

[Polymath257]

That is the belief. But we are examining the evidence. There is no observable testing to show this as even possible. Genetics and millennia of observation says otherwise. Organisms do NOT increase in diversity, or variability. They decrease. Devolution is all we observe. There is no mechanism for 'creating' new traits, that are not already there in the parent organism. It is an imagined belief, based on 'looks like!' plausibility.

Yes, there *is* a mechanism for 'creating' new traits. I have mentioned one of them and I have given a link to a different thread where details are given for another.

The evidence is for diversity in dogs is, well, the diversity of dogs. That wasn't there in the original population, which means that diversity increased. The article *you* gave notes this and attempts to *explain* that increase in diversity using evolutionary principles. And it does a good job of such.

At this point, you are simply repeating yourself. Give some *actual* evidence that diversity *always* increases as opposed to increases. In particular, give a *scientific* article that claims, with data, that the diversity of canines *decreased* after the domestication of dogs. Such an article would be in *direct* contradiction to the article you gave.

 

[usfan]

You have only made assertions and presented any scientific refrences to support your assertions based on a religious agenda.

Right..

I go through any studies presented, and carefully, CRITICALLY, examine all claims. I throw a few of your ad hom grenades back, but i cannot compete with the sheer volume of the heckling, mocking, and jeering, you and your cronies dish out..

I don't even try.

 

[usfan]

That wasn't there in the original population,

But it was. Even the study acknowledged that. Did you miss it? That was the point:

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.

The bolded above are quotes from the study, clearly admitting the traits in canidae over the last 200 yrs or so were ALREADY THERE, in the ancestral wolf population.

They did not provide any evidence to the contrary, just conjecture and a conclusion of, 'Therefore, Evolution!'

You can believe these projections, if you wish, but the facts do not compel that conclusion. They strongly support the opposite, that there is no 'increasing diversity!', in canidae, but decreasing, as the phylogenetic tree reaches its tips.

 

[Polymath257]

But it was. Even the study acknowledged that. Did you miss it? That was the point:

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.

The bolded above are quotes from the study, clearly admitting the traits in canidae over the last 200 yrs or so were ALREADY THERE, in the ancestral wolf population.

They did not provide any evidence to the contrary, just conjecture and a conclusion of, 'Therefore, Evolution!'

You can believe these projections, if you wish, but the facts do not compel that conclusion. They strongly support the opposite, that there is no 'increasing diversity!', in canidae, but decreasing, as the phylogenetic tree reaches its tips.

Once again, there is a distinction between *potential* diversity and actual diversity. You even acknowledged so in a response you made to me concerning an example I gave showing the difference.

The article is amazed at the *potential* diversity in the ancestral population. It then goes on to explain the *actual* diversity in later populations (including dogs).

Can you, again, agree that there is a difference between the potential, but unrealized diversity in an ancestral population and the *realized* diversity in a later population and that represents an *increase* of diversity?

 

[tas8831]

This is just ad hom, and a straw man.

It is neither - but it is informative for all to note which of my posts you decide to reply to - you dutifully avoid those demonstrating your scientific errors Funny how that goes.

I make no appeals to authority

Except your own implicit 'authority':

"I think an understanding of some of the terminology would be good to clarify. So much of the misunderstandings about genetics & living organisms are due to flawed beliefs about the DNA, how it is assembled, what it does, & how it can change."

How many times did you copy paste that precious little diagram of a chromosome and deign to 'educate' us all about what DNA is and the like?
And then you mis-define haplogroup? And you fully accept the results of mtGenome analyses for Canids, yet pretend that the analyses for the Carnivora or for Primates are somehow untrustworthy?
Gee - could it be your creationism bias and NOT the data used or the methods employed?


OMIT incel-alt-right-Trump-style whining and avoidance behavior.



Anyway - still waiting for you to EXPLAIN what, EXACTLY, the "markers" you keep mentioning were, and how it is that no such markers were used in the Primate or Carnovora mtGenome papers I posted, given that they they, too, used complete mt Genomes.

I mean, you must know all about the SCIENCE, right? Also - as this has been ignored for some time:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.


And then:


Please demonstrate that what you claim/imply here was ever taught anywhere by anyone:

"You cannot just take chromosomes from one organism, & plug them into another, or fuse them, or split them, to 'create' a new organism, with different genetic makeup. That is scientifically impossible, yet it is the central assertion of the ToE."

And then, address this (as polymath refuted several of your claims on this paper, I have cropped my earlier replies to omit those references):

RE: the Canid paper you enjoy - why do you continue to ignore a more recent paper offering greater insights into the Canidae, as I cite and quote here:

Abstract
There are nearly 400 modern domestic dog breeds with a unique histories and genetic profiles. To track the genetic signatures of breed development, we have assembled the most diverse dataset of dog breeds, reflecting their extensive phenotypic variation and heritage. Combining genetic distance, migration, and genome-wide haplotype sharing analyses, we uncover geographic patterns of development and independent origins of common traits. Our analyses reveal the hybrid history of breeds and elucidate the effects of immigration, revealing for the first time a suggestion of New World dog within some modern breeds. Finally, we used cladistics and haplotype sharing to show that some common traits have arisen more than once in the history of the dog. These analyses characterize the complexities of breed development resolving long standing questions regarding individual breed origination, the effect of migration on geographically distinct breeds, and by inference, transfer of trait and disease alleles among dog breeds.
and

Previous studies have addressed the genomic makeup of a limited number of breeds, demonstrating that dogs from the same breed share common alleles and can be grouped using measures of population structure (Irion et al., 2003; Koskinen, 2003; Parker et al., 2004), and breeds that possess similar form and function often share similar allelic patterns (Parker et al., 2004; Parker et al., 2007; Vonholdt et al., 2010). However, none of these studies have effectively accounted for the variety of mechanisms through which modern breeds may have developed, such as geographic separation and immigration; the role of hybridization in the history of the breeds; and the time-line of the formation of breeds. In this study we overcome these barriers by presenting an expansive dataset including pure-breeds sampled from multiple sections of the globe and genotyped on a dense scale. By applying both phylogenetic methods as well as a genome-wide analysis of recent haplotype sharing, we have unraveled common population confounders for many breeds leading us to propose a two-step process of breed creation beginning with ancient separation by functional employment followed by recent selection for physical attributes. These data and analyses provide a basis for understanding which and why numerous, sometimes deleterious, mutations are shared across seemingly unrelated breeds.

And regarding the origin of the Canidae ("The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly"), well, you are way wrong:

Carnivora

Man's Best Friend
"Domestic dogs, wild dogs, and wolves all belong to the Family Canidae, which also contains jackals, coyotes, and foxes. Canidae is contained within the group caniformia which is contained within the Order Carnivora, one of the eighteen current groups of Eutherians, or placental mammals. A full list of the groups contained in Canidae is provided below.

Within the Canidae are 14 groups, or genera. Contained within those 14 genera are at least 34 species and two subspecies (a chart showing all members in the Canidae is provided below). The genus Canis contains dogs, jackals, and wolves. The gray wolf, Canis lupus, is among 7 species of canids and also related to two subspecies, Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris, which are known commonly as the dingo and the domestic dog, respectively."

Some relevant refererences provided for the two links above:

Lindlad-Toh, K. et al. (2005) Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature. 438, 803-819.
Arnason, U., A. Gullberg, A. Janke, and M. Kullberg. 2007. Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45 (3): 863-874.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and A. Purvis. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 74:143-175.
Delisle, I. and C. Strobeck. 2005. A phylogeny of the Caniformia (order Carnivora) based on 12 complete protein-coding mitochondrial genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37(1):192-201.
Dragoo, J.W. and R. L. Honeycutt. 1997. Systematics of mustelid-like carnivores. Journal of Mammalogy 78:426-443.
Flynn, J. J., J. A. Finarelli, S. Zehr, J. Hsu, and M. A. Nedbal. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships. Systematic Biology 54(2):317-337.
Schreiber, A., K. Eulenberger, and K. Bauer. 1998. Immunogenetic evidence for the phylogenetic sister group relationship of dogs and bears (Mammalia, Carnivora : Canidae and Ursidae) - A comparative determinant analysis of carnivoran albumin, C3 complement and immunoglobulin mu-chain. Experimental and Clinical Immunogenetics 15:154-170.
Wyss, A. R. and J. J. Flynn. 1993. A phylogenetic analysis and definition of the Carnivora. Pages 32-52 in Mammal Phylogeny. Volume 2. Placentals. (F. S. Szalay, M. J. Novacek, and M. C. McKenna, eds.) Springer Verlag, New York.
Zhang, Y. P. and O. A. Ryder. 1993. Mitochondrial-DNA sequence evolution in the Arctoidea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 90:9557-9561.

I know, I know - citation bombing.... Lengthy cut and paste, right? No - these are references showing that your implication about the origin of the Canidae is bogus.​

So employ your supposed grand grasp of the scientific method and genetics, and explain it all, won't you?

 

[tas8831]

But it was. Even the study acknowledged that. Did you miss it? That was the point:

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 keep ignoring the more recent paper I quoted for you, for some reason that I can only guess at:

Abstract
There are nearly 400 modern domestic dog breeds with a unique histories and genetic profiles. To track the genetic signatures of breed development, we have assembled the most diverse dataset of dog breeds, reflecting their extensive phenotypic variation and heritage. Combining genetic distance, migration, and genome-wide haplotype sharing analyses, we uncover geographic patterns of development and independent origins of common traits. Our analyses reveal the hybrid history of breeds and elucidate the effects of immigration, revealing for the first time a suggestion of New World dog within some modern breeds. Finally, we used cladistics and haplotype sharing to show that some common traits have arisen more than once in the history of the dog. These analyses characterize the complexities of breed development resolving long standing questions regarding individual breed origination, the effect of migration on geographically distinct breeds, and by inference, transfer of trait and disease alleles among dog breeds.
​

and

Previous studies have addressed the genomic makeup of a limited number of breeds, demonstrating that dogs from the same breed share common alleles and can be grouped using measures of population structure (Irion et al., 2003; Koskinen, 2003; Parker et al., 2004), and breeds that possess similar form and function often share similar allelic patterns (Parker et al., 2004; Parker et al., 2007; Vonholdt et al., 2010). However, none of these studies have effectively accounted for the variety of mechanisms through which modern breeds may have developed, such as geographic separation and immigration; the role of hybridization in the history of the breeds; and the time-line of the formation of breeds. In this study we overcome these barriers by presenting an expansive dataset including pure-breeds sampled from multiple sections of the globe and genotyped on a dense scale. By applying both phylogenetic methods as well as a genome-wide analysis of recent haplotype sharing, we have unraveled common population confounders for many breeds leading us to propose a two-step process of breed creation beginning with ancient separation by functional employment followed by recent selection for physical attributes. These data and analyses provide a basis for understanding which and why numerous, sometimes deleterious, mutations are shared across seemingly unrelated breeds.​

And also, regarding your claim about the Canids being a clade unto themselves - that is true, but they are also part of the Carnivora clade (that is how cladistics works - you must know that, right?):

And regarding the origin of the Canidae ("The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly"), well, you are way wrong:

Carnivora

Man's Best Friend
"Domestic dogs, wild dogs, and wolves all belong to the Family Canidae, which also contains jackals, coyotes, and foxes. Canidae is contained within the group caniformia which is contained within the Order Carnivora, one of the eighteen current groups of Eutherians, or placental mammals. A full list of the groups contained in Canidae is provided below.

Within the Canidae are 14 groups, or genera. Contained within those 14 genera are at least 34 species and two subspecies (a chart showing all members in the Canidae is provided below). The genus Canis contains dogs, jackals, and wolves. The gray wolf, Canis lupus, is among 7 species of canids and also related to two subspecies, Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris, which are known commonly as the dingo and the domestic dog, respectively."

Some relevant references provided for the two links above:

Lindlad-Toh, K. et al. (2005) Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature. 438, 803-819.
Arnason, U., A. Gullberg, A. Janke, and M. Kullberg. 2007. Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45 (3): 863-874.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and A. Purvis. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 74:143-175.
Delisle, I. and C. Strobeck. 2005. A phylogeny of the Caniformia (order Carnivora) based on 12 complete protein-coding mitochondrial genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37(1):192-201.
Dragoo, J.W. and R. L. Honeycutt. 1997. Systematics of mustelid-like carnivores. Journal of Mammalogy 78:426-443.
Flynn, J. J., J. A. Finarelli, S. Zehr, J. Hsu, and M. A. Nedbal. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships. Systematic Biology 54(2):317-337.
Schreiber, A., K. Eulenberger, and K. Bauer. 1998. Immunogenetic evidence for the phylogenetic sister group relationship of dogs and bears (Mammalia, Carnivora : Canidae and Ursidae) - A comparative determinant analysis of carnivoran albumin, C3 complement and immunoglobulin mu-chain. Experimental and Clinical Immunogenetics 15:154-170.
Wyss, A. R. and J. J. Flynn. 1993. A phylogenetic analysis and definition of the Carnivora. Pages 32-52 in Mammal Phylogeny. Volume 2. Placentals. (F. S. Szalay, M. J. Novacek, and M. C. McKenna, eds.) Springer Verlag, New York.
Zhang, Y. P. and O. A. Ryder. 1993. Mitochondrial-DNA sequence evolution in the Arctoidea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 90:9557-9561.

I know, I know - citation bombing.... Lengthy cut and paste, right? No - these are references showing that your implication about the origin of the Canidae is bogus. Deal with it.
​

 

[tas8831]

They strongly support the opposite, that there is no 'increasing diversity!', in canidae, but decreasing, as the phylogenetic tree reaches its tips.

I think I may see why it is that you believe that diversity decreases - you refuse to acknowledge where diversity comes from in the first place.

You have between 100 and 200 mutations that neither of your parents had.

How is that possible?

Mutation occurs largely during DNA replication either in mitosis or meiosis. That is, during the production of sperm and egg, there are several hundred (or more) cell divisions that occur during which mutations can accrue. Each zygote contains a haploid sperm genome with mutations the father did not have, and a haploid oocyte genome with mutations that the mother did not have. That is where the diversity comes from, an accumulation of mutations.
The diversity is not in an individual parent - it is in the 'new genomes' created during meiosis combining during fertilization.

You seem to believe that the diversity was in the original 'kind' - this could be easily demonstrated by comparing the 'parent kind' genome to the 'child kind' (to borrow your terminology) genome , e.g., wolf to dog.

In fact, this is so easy that I am surprised that folks who believe like you do (there are many, I have encountered several over the years) have not bothered to test the claim to "prove' their position correct using science.

I know why this has not been done, of course.

 

[shunyadragon]

Were those yours?

I throw some back, every now and then, but only if i can pick them up by the clean end..

But that does explain the obsession with e.coli, earlier..

Still waiting . . .

No supporting scientific references nor coherent discussion of science on your part.

 

[shunyadragon]

Right..

I go through any studies presented, and carefully, CRITICALLY, examine all claims. I throw a few of your ad hom grenades back, but i cannot compete with the sheer volume of the heckling, mocking, and jeering, you and your cronies dish out..

I don't even try.

Again . . . considering the scientific reference, you have failed to present any coherent response base don science. You simply assert they are false or inadequate. They are written by qualified scientists, and you have no background in science to respond specifically and coherently concerning the references.

Name calling does not qualify as a critique..The sheer volume of the heckling, mocking, and jeering, you and dish out is the issue documented by the history of your posts...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Still waiting . . .

No supporting scientific references nor coherent discussion of science on your part.

At least he is consistent.

 

[tas8831]

I go through any studies presented, and carefully, CRITICALLY, examine all claims.

So he claims... Yet he wrote this when I provided the post linked below:

"I'm not going to sift through all that to try to discover a 'point'. This is obfuscation with volume. Long cut & pastes, with no specific point being made does not equal 'evidence!'"

And what was "all that"?

And this stuff about no point being made?

Funny - it was SCIENCE AND a short, clear-cut conclusion.

Here it is (yet again - sorry for the broken record stuff, but I cannot let false claims of bravado stand), quotes truncated for brevity, important point in bold and red at the end:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

[...]

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. ... The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology...

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

... Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can hereby ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

... The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "


A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed... "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things. Other than bland, predictable, and rather lame attempts to undermine the evidence by citing 'worst-case scenario experiments' and the like, no creationist has ever mounted a relelevant, much less scientific rebuttal. And, of course, no creationist has ever offered real evidence in support of a biblical-style creation.

​

There was no attempt, whatsoever, to go though and 'critically examine' any of these claims.

The same blow-off avoidance technique was employed when I presented mitogenomic phylogenetic analyses of Carnivores and Primates using the same data and techniques as his precious Canid paper - just some excuses and assertions and whining and false accusations....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You keep ignoring the more recent paper I quoted for you, for some reason that I can only guess at:

Abstract
There are nearly 400 modern domestic dog breeds with a unique histories and genetic profiles. To track the genetic signatures of breed development, we have assembled the most diverse dataset of dog breeds, reflecting their extensive phenotypic variation and heritage. Combining genetic distance, migration, and genome-wide haplotype sharing analyses, we uncover geographic patterns of development and independent origins of common traits. Our analyses reveal the hybrid history of breeds and elucidate the effects of immigration, revealing for the first time a suggestion of New World dog within some modern breeds. Finally, we used cladistics and haplotype sharing to show that some common traits have arisen more than once in the history of the dog. These analyses characterize the complexities of breed development resolving long standing questions regarding individual breed origination, the effect of migration on geographically distinct breeds, and by inference, transfer of trait and disease alleles among dog breeds.
​

and

Previous studies have addressed the genomic makeup of a limited number of breeds, demonstrating that dogs from the same breed share common alleles and can be grouped using measures of population structure (Irion et al., 2003; Koskinen, 2003; Parker et al., 2004), and breeds that possess similar form and function often share similar allelic patterns (Parker et al., 2004; Parker et al., 2007; Vonholdt et al., 2010). However, none of these studies have effectively accounted for the variety of mechanisms through which modern breeds may have developed, such as geographic separation and immigration; the role of hybridization in the history of the breeds; and the time-line of the formation of breeds. In this study we overcome these barriers by presenting an expansive dataset including pure-breeds sampled from multiple sections of the globe and genotyped on a dense scale. By applying both phylogenetic methods as well as a genome-wide analysis of recent haplotype sharing, we have unraveled common population confounders for many breeds leading us to propose a two-step process of breed creation beginning with ancient separation by functional employment followed by recent selection for physical attributes. These data and analyses provide a basis for understanding which and why numerous, sometimes deleterious, mutations are shared across seemingly unrelated breeds.​

And also, regarding your claim about the Canids being a clade unto themselves - that is true, but they are also part of the Carnivora clade (that is how cladistics works - you must know that, right?):

And regarding the origin of the Canidae ("The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly"), well, you are way wrong:

Carnivora

Man's Best Friend
"Domestic dogs, wild dogs, and wolves all belong to the Family Canidae, which also contains jackals, coyotes, and foxes. Canidae is contained within the group caniformia which is contained within the Order Carnivora, one of the eighteen current groups of Eutherians, or placental mammals. A full list of the groups contained in Canidae is provided below.

Within the Canidae are 14 groups, or genera. Contained within those 14 genera are at least 34 species and two subspecies (a chart showing all members in the Canidae is provided below). The genus Canis contains dogs, jackals, and wolves. The gray wolf, Canis lupus, is among 7 species of canids and also related to two subspecies, Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris, which are known commonly as the dingo and the domestic dog, respectively."

Some relevant references provided for the two links above:

Lindlad-Toh, K. et al. (2005) Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature. 438, 803-819.
Arnason, U., A. Gullberg, A. Janke, and M. Kullberg. 2007. Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45 (3): 863-874.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. L. Gittleman, and A. Purvis. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 74:143-175.
Delisle, I. and C. Strobeck. 2005. A phylogeny of the Caniformia (order Carnivora) based on 12 complete protein-coding mitochondrial genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37(1):192-201.
Dragoo, J.W. and R. L. Honeycutt. 1997. Systematics of mustelid-like carnivores. Journal of Mammalogy 78:426-443.
Flynn, J. J., J. A. Finarelli, S. Zehr, J. Hsu, and M. A. Nedbal. 2005. Molecular phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships. Systematic Biology 54(2):317-337.
Schreiber, A., K. Eulenberger, and K. Bauer. 1998. Immunogenetic evidence for the phylogenetic sister group relationship of dogs and bears (Mammalia, Carnivora : Canidae and Ursidae) - A comparative determinant analysis of carnivoran albumin, C3 complement and immunoglobulin mu-chain. Experimental and Clinical Immunogenetics 15:154-170.
Wyss, A. R. and J. J. Flynn. 1993. A phylogenetic analysis and definition of the Carnivora. Pages 32-52 in Mammal Phylogeny. Volume 2. Placentals. (F. S. Szalay, M. J. Novacek, and M. C. McKenna, eds.) Springer Verlag, New York.
Zhang, Y. P. and O. A. Ryder. 1993. Mitochondrial-DNA sequence evolution in the Arctoidea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 90:9557-9561.

I know, I know - citation bombing.... Lengthy cut and paste, right? No - these are references showing that your implication about the origin of the Canidae is bogus. Deal with it.
​

Pretty interesting scientific information you have posted and continue to post. Thanks for the references.

Clearly, the evidence from dogs supports common descent.

You have to admit, this is the best creationist argument out there. Claim knowledge and experience with no basis for doing so. Deny everything. Play the martyr. Establish an atmosphere of abuse, misinformation and personal attack. Project that atmosphere on everyone else. Avoid any actual discussion while claiming to be the only one offering discussion.

 

[tas8831]

Pretty interesting scientific information you have posted and continue to post. Thanks for the references.

Clearly, the evidence from dogs supports common descent.

You have to admit, this is the best creationist argument out there. Claim knowledge and experience with no basis for doing so. Deny everything. Play the martyr. Establish an atmosphere of abuse, misinformation and personal attack. Project that atmosphere on everyone else. Avoid any actual discussion while claiming to be the only one offering discussion.

Good assessment - pity that it can apply to so many such folk.

 

[Bear Wild]

Pretty interesting scientific information you have posted and continue to post. Thanks for the references.

Clearly, the evidence from dogs supports common descent.

You have to admit, this is the best creationist argument out there. Claim knowledge and experience with no basis for doing so. Deny everything. Play the martyr. Establish an atmosphere of abuse, misinformation and personal attack. Project that atmosphere on everyone else. Avoid any actual discussion while claiming to be the only one offering discussion.

I could not have described usfan better!

 

[tas8831]

But that does explain the obsession with e.coli, earlier..

The only person in this thread with an E. coli obsession is you, seeing as how your brought up E. coli in a reply to me in which you pretended to be responding to some science I posted - none of which mentioned E,. coli.

You project with the best YECism has to offer!


Oh, also:

Anyway - still waiting for you to EXPLAIN what, EXACTLY, the "markers" you keep mentioning were, and how it is that no such markers were used in the Primate or Carnovora mtGenome papers I posted, given that they they, too, used complete mt Genomes.

I mean, you must know all about the SCIENCE, right? Also - as this has been ignored for some time:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.

 

[tas8831]

Repeated, from the study on canidae mtDNA:

Abstract
There are nearly 400 modern domestic dog breeds with a unique histories and genetic profiles. To track the genetic signatures of breed development, we have assembled the most diverse dataset of dog breeds, reflecting their extensive phenotypic variation and heritage. Combining genetic distance, migration, and genome-wide haplotype sharing analyses, we uncover geographic patterns of development and independent origins of common traits. Our analyses reveal the hybrid history of breeds and elucidate the effects of immigration, revealing for the first time a suggestion of New World dog within some modern breeds. Finally, we used cladistics and haplotype sharing to show that some common traits have arisen more than once in the history of the dog. These analyses characterize the complexities of breed development resolving long standing questions regarding individual breed origination, the effect of migration on geographically distinct breeds, and by inference, transfer of trait and disease alleles among dog breeds.
​

and

Previous studies have addressed the genomic makeup of a limited number of breeds, demonstrating that dogs from the same breed share common alleles and can be grouped using measures of population structure (Irion et al., 2003; Koskinen, 2003; Parker et al., 2004), and breeds that possess similar form and function often share similar allelic patterns (Parker et al., 2004; Parker et al., 2007; Vonholdt et al., 2010). However, none of these studies have effectively accounted for the variety of mechanisms through which modern breeds may have developed, such as geographic separation and immigration; the role of hybridization in the history of the breeds; and the time-line of the formation of breeds. In this study we overcome these barriers by presenting an expansive dataset including pure-breeds sampled from multiple sections of the globe and genotyped on a dense scale. By applying both phylogenetic methods as well as a genome-wide analysis of recent haplotype sharing, we have unraveled common population confounders for many breeds leading us to propose a two-step process of breed creation beginning with ancient separation by functional employment followed by recent selection for physical attributes. These data and analyses provide a basis for understanding which and why numerous, sometimes deleterious, mutations are shared across seemingly unrelated breeds.​

And also, regarding your claim about the Canids being a clade unto themselves - that is true, but they are also part of the Carnivora clade (that is how cladistics works - you must know that, right?):

And regarding the origin of the Canidae ("The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly"), well, you are way wrong:

Carnivora

Man's Best Friend
"Domestic dogs, wild dogs, and wolves all belong to the Family Canidae, which also contains jackals, coyotes, and foxes. Canidae is contained within the group caniformia which is contained within the Order Carnivora, one of the eighteen current groups of Eutherians, or placental mammals. A full list of the groups contained in Canidae is provided below.

Within the Canidae are 14 groups, or genera. Contained within those 14 genera are at least 34 species and two subspecies (a chart showing all members in the Canidae is provided below). The genus Canis contains dogs, jackals, and wolves. The gray wolf, Canis lupus, is among 7 species of canids and also related to two subspecies, Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris, which are known commonly as the dingo and the domestic dog, respectively."​

 

[Bear Wild]

But it was. Even the study acknowledged that. Did you miss it? That was the point:

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.

The bolded above are quotes from the study, clearly admitting the traits in canidae over the last 200 yrs or so were ALREADY THERE, in the ancestral wolf population.

They did not provide any evidence to the contrary, just conjecture and a conclusion of, 'Therefore, Evolution!'

You can believe these projections, if you wish, but the facts do not compel that conclusion. They strongly support the opposite, that there is no 'increasing diversity!', in canidae, but decreasing, as the phylogenetic tree reaches its tips.

Your posts clearly show you do not know how to read the scientific literature.

We hypothesize that changes in the living conditions of dogs as a result of domestication resulted in the release of selective constraint.
Their evidence as well as other evidence presented to you including one article I gave you on dog wolf genetic comparisons (which understandably you ignored since it gave clear genetic evidence supporting this hypothesis} show how domestication changed the genetic make-up. In the study I presented to you the genetic characteristics of village dogs allowed to interbreed without the domestication techniques of creating pure breed dogs is very similar to wolves.
​

Lets look at the statments​

1. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population.​

So what if it is remarkable? It is true and that is all that matters. ​

​

2. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.​

Doesn't matter whether is seems insufficient. We have more than enough evidence to show how quickly phenotypic changes can occur with selective breading for certain traits. Some in just a few generations as seen in silver fox breading. ​

​

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..
So what? New breeds can be derived in much shorter time periods than 200 years.

4. selection acts upon existing variability..​

Again so what? We do not know what the exact genetic make-up of the Canis species that dogs developed from. Wolves have evolved since that time as well as dogs. Despite this we have excellent evidence to show what selective breeding can do.​

​

You really need to know what you are talking about before you make any more incorrect statements if you are going to be taken seriously. I guess you have never come up against the knowledge base as you have in this forum in your past.​

 

[Polymath257]

Pretty interesting scientific information you have posted and continue to post. Thanks for the references.

Clearly, the evidence from dogs supports common descent.

You have to admit, this is the best creationist argument out there. Claim knowledge and experience with no basis for doing so. Deny everything. Play the martyr. Establish an atmosphere of abuse, misinformation and personal attack. Project that atmosphere on everyone else. Avoid any actual discussion while claiming to be the only one offering discussion.

This is frequently called 'pigeon chess'. The pigeon walks around, pushes over pieces, poops on the board, then declares victory.

[GALLERY=media, 9018]20190702_155032 by Polymath257 posted Aug 1, 2019 at 6:28 AM[/GALLERY]