I found this article:
St. Bernard study casts doubt on creationism
The St Bernard dog – named after the 11th century priest Bernard of Menthon – may have ironically challenged the theory of creationism, say scientists.
Biologists at The University of Manchester say that changes to the shape of the breed’s head over the years can only be explained through evolution and natural selection.
The team, led by Dr Chris Klingenberg in the Faculty of Life Sciences, examined the skulls of 47 St Bernards spanning 120 years, from modern examples to those of dogs dating back to the time when the breed standard was first defined.
“We discovered that features stipulated in the breed standard of the St Bernard became more exaggerated over time as breeders selected dogs that had the desired physical attributes,” said Dr Klingenberg.
“In effect they have applied selection to move the evolutionary process a considerable way forward, providing a unique opportunity to observe sustained evolutionary change under known selective pressures.”
The findings, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences tomorrow (Wednesday), are based on studies of St Bernard skulls donated by Swiss breeders to the Natural History Museum in Berne.
Compared to their ancestors, modern St Bernards have broader skulls, while the angle between the nose and the forehead is steeper in modern dogs and they have also developed a more pronounced ridge above the eyes.
“These changes are exactly in those features described as desirable in the breed standards. They are clearly not due to other factors such as general growth and they provide the animal with no physical advantage, so we can be confident that they have evolved purely through the selective considerations of breeders.
“Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by ‘intelligent design’ and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution.
“But this research once again demonstrates how selection – whether natural or, in this case, artificially influenced by man – is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life on the planet.”
The research was funded by the Leverhulme Trust.
So I wrote a response to the listed email:
Aeron, I saw this article pop up in one of my RSS feeds and thought it an interesting conclusion. I have been studying up on the effects that natural selection has upon this world and the link between it and evolution. You made a pretty broad sweeping statement (if this was your article) in the second sentence :
"Biologists at The University of Manchester say that changes to the shape of the breed's head over the years can only be explained through evolution and natural selection." I find it interesting that you used both terms "evolution" and "natural selection" as if there were some distinguishing mark between them. I don't think that you believe they are different, in fact, most evolutionist will hold that natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation are all under the umbrella of Evolution.
The part that really gets me is this statement: "Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by 'intelligent design' and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution (Emphasis added).
Creationist do not reject the theory of natural selection (aka micro- evolution). Anyone who studies nature and has half a brain knows that animals adapt or they die. Creationist argue that the animal adapts but the animal does not become a completely different species. It does not matter if you label a polar bear a "polar bear" and a black bear a "black bear." They are both bears. The polar bear, it does not matter how many quadrillion years you want to make up, will never be a whale, it will never grow wings, it is not going to evolve to a giraffe.
I would say that the statement made earlier is true intellectual dishonesty or intellectual ignorance. Science today is so profoundly biased that it will take an event such as a St. Bernard's skull changing 2 mm and flat out state that this disproves creationism.
"We discovered that features stipulated in the breed standard of the St Bernard became more exaggerated over time as breeders selected dogs that had the desired physical attributes," said Dr Klingenberg."
"In effect they have applied selection to move the evolutionary process a considerable way forward, providing a unique opportunity to observe sustained evolutionary change under known selective pressures." THE DOGS ARE STILL DOGS....
I promise you that any Egyptian herds man from 5000 yrs ago could have told you that breeding brings about change...yes told you, not grunted to you. Congratulations you have reinvented the wheel. Now science can continue to teach our generation they came from primordial sludge...guess I shouldn't be surprised when people think like it.
My question to you, is this, "Do you even know what this article is trying to refute? Do you know both sides?"
I promise you sir, if one takes any consideration to study both sides, which I myself have, philosophically and scientifically one will come to see that the 'intelligent design' that you mock with your 'quotation' marks, is the only true scientific answer. Just because someone holds that there is a God who created, does not mean they are some loser, hillbilly, middle school dropout that cant even spell their own name. In fact, according to your own science the origins of evolution cannot stand!!! (Laws of thermodynamics says that "matter can neither be created not destroyed." So how did all the stuff we see get here, and don't tell me some spinning dot exploded, because then I will just ask you, "where did the dot come from?") You see if science cannot explain where we came from in the first place, then why can it make such grand statement that scientist "have ironically challenged the theory of creationism." You have done nothing but breed dogs that have made dogs. Let me know when your dogs can fly.
The majority of evolutionist (I cannot call them scientist) are scared to admit that a God may possibly exist because even our own scientific laws state that the "stuff" had to come from somewhere. Evolutionist do not want to admit their theory does not hold because the belief in a God would bring implications upon every persons life. Ideas such as judgment, and heaven and hell could then exist, and the possibility that God would have requirements(morals and values) upon his creation make men such as yourself want to deny that God exist. You will think up your own fanciful religion (yes evolution is nothing but religion) to give any answer even if it is intellectually dishonest and self-refuting to the laws of science.
Sir, you are no friend of science. You hurt and bring shame to the name that science has had over the course of history.
And yes I can spell my name,
I have only 2 questions to anyone reading this blog. 1. Do you agree with my assessment? 2. Do you think I was too bold or argumentative?
Not that it makes a difference now because the email is sent.
No comments:
Post a Comment