I agree, I'm not religious but you're yet another person who jumped to this conclusion without reading the thread.

I'm agnostic. I'm scientific. I have no belief in the bible or God.

Scientists can't even agree if and when speciation occurs.

Interbreeding dogs is no different than your parents getting together and having you as their child. They each had their own set of genes and passed some down to you. You received genes from both parents. Therefore you probably look like both of them, one of them, or none of them. This is not evidence for evolution. It's evidence for my theory that man was always man. Has been for the past few thousand years and appears that it's the way he will be for time immortal to come.

Sure they can. "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups"

Why don't you address enormous morphological changes that occur in dogs due to artificial selection?

No that's not the case because all humans can interbreed.

Some dogs because of morphological changes can not interbreed. They are for all intensive purposes different species. They have evolved (albeit by artificial means).

Please define these morphological changes preferrably with examples.

Please provide examples of such dogs. Also, are these dogs able to reproduce? I will read up on this.

Note that if they're being bred by artificial means. In other words they're being bred in a manner that never could have and never would have occurred naturally, it's not a clear cut example of evolution which is a natural process.

But it may very well be. I would gladly do some reading on the findings, and their analysis of those findings, and draw my own conclusions.

"Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures."

Let's use the dogs example, do you have evidence for the example regarding dogs. The example regarding dogs will likely be more difficult for me to answer because they've probably done much more studies on it.

Also feel free to give me links to the sources where you're taking the quotes from, including the one above. Thanks.

"Some breeds have been developed to emphasize certain physical traits beyond the point at which they can safely bear litters on their own. For example, the Bulldog often requires artificial insemination and almost always requires cesarian section for giving birth."

Wikipedia

Do a search for it, there's plenty of information arouund.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

That talks about the algae and bacteria although it doesn't quote the study.. I might have a look for it.

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.

Interesting. The wonderful thing about this impartial scientific link you provided is that for most predictions it makes, it provides a confirmation of the prediction and a potential falsification for it.

Therefore my answers to you to refute the evidence, would be all the potential falsifications they've outlined on that page.

In essence they're stating that their is room for their observations and assertions to be incorrect. I'm certain I could find further potential falsifications that they may have left out or not thought about.

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/

Well Mike33, I haven't claimed evolution is rock solid. Perhaps we're just arguing on degrees, I find the evidence impressive, you obviously do not.

It's not that I don't find it impressive because I do. I don't think we're arguing on degrees as much as what you think the data tells us about evolution and what I think it tells us about evolution. I appreciate your input in this thread. I hope you and people like you continue working in this area and uncover more evidence. There does seem to be a lot of potential in it.

Can you believe I started this 10 years ago?

Wonder how many believe now and many people are still here