An interesting creationist question about dogs....

[Kosh]

From one of Ken Ham's "short bus" riders:

"If all we had were fossils of dogs, how many millions of years would atheists say it took for them to "evolve" into all of these differences?"

Thought it was interesting. I think the answer is "depends on how many different geologic layers they were found in".

But seriously, based just on fossils, how would you determine speciation vs. just breed differences?

 

[Keith&Co.]

"If all we had were fossils of dogs, how many millions of years would atheists say it took for them to "evolve" into all of these differences?"

I think most atheists would turn to paleontologists and ask what the expert opinion was on the ages of the fossils. Then turn to evolutionary biologists and ask their expert opinion on how the fossils are all connected.

And then point at people who think evolution is a purely atheist endeavor and laugh at them.

 

[abaddon]

I think the answer is "depends on how many different geologic layers they were found in".

But seriously, based just on fossils, how would you determine speciation vs. just breed differences?

Geologic layers, as you said.

Depending on where and how the fossils are found could make it possible for scientists to surmise that, as various as the dogs were, still they were interbreeding. Their association with human/cultural remains would help determine it.

Why would anyone say millions of years if there aren’t millions of years of sequential changes from one dog size/shape into another?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why would anyone say millions of years if there aren’t millions of years of sequential changes from one dog size/shape into another?

Because the creationist thinks that the Earth is only 10,000 years old (at the longest), so they think that atheist scientists misinterpret fossil data by several orders of magnitude. So they're saying if all we had was doggie fossils, we'd interpret it as millions of years of history.

 

[James Brown]

Obviously Ken's question is not a search for information, but a hope to score a point...

BUT...

Looking at the extreme differences in morphology between different breeds of dogs, it makes me wonder about our classification of other non-domesticated species. Suppose we found the morphological equivalent of two wildly different fossils, except these are birds, not dogs. And if the two fossils were found in the same geological layer, would biologists look at the two and declare them to be different species?

It seems to me that reproductive success can only be determined on living organisms that we can examine, so how can we identify unique species in the fossil record in the same layer? I've read that some species of crickets are distinguished merely by their songs. So what do we do with fossilized crickets?

I'm asking for a friend.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Seems like a bit of a loaded question, because simply, we use more than fossils when making such determinations, and many of these techniques overlap. Nevertheless, what is meant by "just fossils"? Can we run tests on the fossils? Do we know where they came out of the ground? This is equivalent to blocking off all your vision except through a pinhole sized area, bringing in an elephant and asking what it is that you see.

 

[skepticalbip]

Obviously Ken's question is not a search for information, but a hope to score a point...

BUT...

Looking at the extreme differences in morphology between different breeds of dogs, it makes me wonder about our classification of other non-domesticated species. Suppose we found the morphological equivalent of two wildly different fossils, except these are birds, not dogs. And if the two fossils were found in the same geological layer, would biologists look at the two and declare them to be different species?

If all that was available is the fossils of an extinct critter then some certainly would because they often do, more frequently mistaking different species as one specie such as when the first Neanderthal fossils were found - BUT they are frequently challenged by others in the field. On the other hand, while there can certainly be uncertainty of the species, there would be little uncertainty as to the genus, pretty much none as to the family, and then there is the order, class, phylum, and kingdom which even non-professionals would have little trouble identifying.

It seems to me that reproductive success can only be determined on living organisms that we can examine, so how can we identify unique species in the fossil record in the same layer? I've read that some species of crickets are distinguished merely by their songs. So what do we do with fossilized crickets?

I'm asking for a friend.

Rather than giving your friend an answer which they will likely dispute and/or ignore if they don't like the answer, it may be a real favor to them to tell them to visit the library and do a little reading about taxonomy.

 

[Underseer]

From one of Ken Ham's "short bus" riders:

"If all we had were fossils of dogs, how many millions of years would atheists say it took for them to "evolve" into all of these differences?"

Thought it was interesting. I think the answer is "depends on how many different geologic layers they were found in".

But seriously, based just on fossils, how would you determine speciation vs. just breed differences?

Honestly, I would use that as a launching off point for discussing how selective breeding inspired the ideas of evolution, and not just with Darwin. Other versions of ideas similar to evolution have been proposed throughout history, and more than likely, these ideas were inspired by noticing how radically farmers could alter an animal or plant species just by controlling which individuals reproduce.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From one of Ken Ham's "short bus" riders:

"If all we had were fossils of dogs, how many millions of years would atheists say it took for them to "evolve" into all of these differences?"

Thought it was interesting. I think the answer is "depends on how many different geologic layers they were found in".

But seriously, based just on fossils, how would you determine speciation vs. just breed differences?

Honestly, I would use that as a launching off point for discussing how selective breeding inspired the ideas of evolution, and not just with Darwin. Other versions of ideas similar to evolution have been proposed throughout history, and more than likely, these ideas were inspired by noticing how radically farmers could alter an animal or plant species just by controlling which individuals reproduce.

No. No. NO! You're supposed to look at his question and say, "Yes, now I see Jesus walking around Palestine. There he is!"

Seriously, you've done nothing when you've bested a fool.

 

[Kosh]

[
No. No. NO! You're supposed to look at his question and say, "Yes, now I see Jesus walking around Palestine. There he is!"

Seriously, you've done nothing when you've bested a fool.

Right, which why I don't even bother engaging when they say shit like "if a meteor killed all the dinosaurs , why did the elephants survive?" (Srsly, someone said that )

I go there more for the entertainment, but I was curious about that question .

 

[Hickdive]

They wouldn't.

Ham is trying to obfuscate the time necessary for speciation by ignoring the difference between evolution and selective breeding. The former takes millions of years and the latter can be achieved in a few generations.

If he can convince the gullible that evolution takes only the same amount of time as selective breeding then his ark timeline doesn't seem as ludicrous.

 

[Random Person]

From one of Ken Ham's "short bus" riders:

"If all we had were fossils of dogs, how many millions of years would atheists say it took for them to "evolve" into all of these differences?"

Thought it was interesting. I think the answer is "depends on how many different geologic layers they were found in".

But seriously, based just on fossils, how would you determine speciation vs. just breed differences?

It's a somewhat complicated question but one that is clearly answered if you don't mind doing quite a bit of reading.

You can start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae

 

[Kosh]

If he can convince the gullible that evolution takes only the same amount of time as selective breeding then his ark timeline doesn't seem as ludicrous.

Excellent point. They have been backed into a corner and can no longer deny it completely.