Quote:
Originally posted by Mike33
sac, I think I alluded to this in one of my posts. Quite frankly I didn't find a whole lot except for conjecture and uncertain evidence.
For example "There is archaeological evidence of dog remains, showing the characteristic morphological differences from wolves, from at least 14,000 years ago, while wolf remains have been found in association with hominid remains that are at least 400,000 years old. "
"Some evidence suggests that several varieties of ancient wolves contributed to the domestic dog". Evidence on a topic like this is far from certain.
But without attacking the evidence, let us look at the qoute you provided about the bulldog. The qoute says that Bulldogs have developed extreme traits and that they often require artificial insemination and cesarian section. Now, do you think this is an example of evolution or de-evolution? Do you think a dog would evolve in such a way that it makes it more difficult to breed to the point where if it existed without man, it would be extinct within one generation or two? To me, this is the opposite of evolution. It suggests a problem that we've introduced by interbreeding dogs for traits so far from their own that they're unnatural and wouldn't survive. Evolution is adapting, not un-adapting to the environment.
|
Well successful evolution is adaption, but due to the random nature of the process of course there are many extinctions.
Perhaps a better example is that a Great Dane is very unlikely to succesfully breed with a Chihuahua. The reduced or minimal fertility means they're not going to share traits and will more likely diverge further.
Here's a couple more references to algae becoming multicellular.. not the actual original articles though..
http://www.unbf.ca/vip/amnedelcu/res...rytransitions/