toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) (05/13/85)
[] My understanding of the current attitude of the creationists on the net is that they believe that the various breeds of dogs show that selection can produce large differences within a "kind", but they are skeptical that one kind can ever change sufficiently to become a different kind. The evolutionist position, as I understand it, is that all the higher- level groups -- families, orders, and so forth -- fit on an evolutionary tree. That is, every one of them associates with a single ancestral group working backward, although the details may be sketchy for some parts of the tree. Furthermore, any observable characteristic -- protein composition, layout of organs, geographical distribution, development -- matches the same tree that one would work out on the basis of fossils. So it should be easy for creationists to point out the kinds or groups that don't fit the tree. If only there were vertebrates with four legs and wings, for instance (like dragons, or angels), the evolutionists would be hard pressed to find a satisfactory ancestral group. It is biologically possible to have wings and more than two legs (flies leap to mind), but each such group appears to have appropriate ancestors. Other potential bombshells could be found anywhere: tigers in Hawaii, a human embryo that doesn't have a tail part, dolphins with scales or a solid backbone. But until one such creature is discovered, it seems that dogs are a small part of a larger pattern. Tom Long