Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Dog Breath, In the Year of the Plague
Message-ID: <593@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 18:06:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.593
Posted: Fri May  3 18:06:53 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 00:31:57 EDT
References: <1012@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 32


>Finally, I would like to point out for further reference that if
>evolutionists wish to use dogs as an example of evolutionary change,
>then another claim that has been made (the claim of "only 100 years or
>observed artificial selection") goes out the window.  It would be more
>like, I suppose, 10,000 years or so - 100 times longer!  (14,000
>according to Patterson).  And what do we have after 10,000 years??  Lots
>of different dogs, morphologically different, but interfertile.  Thus
>they are not even biological species (reproductive isolates).
>
>-- 
>                                                                    |
>Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
>                                                                    |

Still, that 10,000 years of 'observed artificial selection' you're talking
about were not specific attempts to achieve reproductive isolation.  You
are assuming that people breeding dogs for various characteristics are
using the same techniques that one expect would produce such reproductive
isolation.   I would agree that the domestic dog is probably not a very
good example of evolutionary change.  At the moment, I would be more inclined
to pick the horse/mule combination, or your example of Drosophila.
Note that 'observed artificial selection' varies depending on what you're
selecting for, and 10,000 years of dog breeding is not what I would
consider a particularly good experiment for reproductive isolation.
And, I suppose it may also be argued that 10,000 years is still a drop in the
evolutionary bucket.  (I thought creationists thought the world was
less that 10,000 years old anyway?).

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd