Of course, a dachshund is more closely related to a coyote than a human is to a chimpanzee.
A better analogy would be to replace the coyote with an African wild dog.
-
Like on Facebook
Blog Stats
- 3,882,459 hits
Retrieverman’s Twitter
- Tougher than you thought wp.me/phvWb-6tY 4 hours ago
- How soft is a golden retriever's mouth? wp.me/phvWb-6tT 18 hours ago
- What to do with a sunk beaver wp.me/phvWb-6tK 1 day ago
- After the rain wp.me/phvWb-6ty 2 days ago
- A juvenile black squirrel wp.me/phvWb-6tr 2 days ago
Community
Google rank
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
Recent Comments
Anna on Tougher than you thought cyborgsuzy on Outside Russell Constable on 14 coyote fetuses retrieverman on 14 coyote fetuses Russell Constable on 14 coyote fetuses Meta
Flickr Photos
More Photos Pages
e college finder
Email Me
Revolver map
Top Posts
Blog Catalog Member
SiteCounter
Donate to this blog
Top 50 Northwest Dog Blogs
Top Dog
Someone should make the African Wild Dog version
or aguara guazu http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=es&sugexp=ckh&cp=9&gs_id=56&xhr=t&q=aguara+guazu&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1024&bih=605&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=GYjAT-zXDYXUgAftrMneCQ
In English, we call that the maned wolf.
It’s a South American wild dog, All South American wild dogs are of a very different lineage than the dog and its closest relatives.
If I remember my phylogeny right the African Wild Dog is only about 1.5 to 2 MY removed from its common ancestor with the wolf. A better version would be any fox as most creationists believe that foxes are in the same baramin with dogs. Foxes are 7 to 10 MY removed from the common ancestor of canines which is about equivalent with respect to time and total genetic divergence between humans and chimps. Duschunds and Wolves look so different but don’t really make the point because they really are very very very similar genetically and do just represent teased our genetic variation from the wolf genetic pool which is exactly what the creationists believe about all creationary evolution. So this figure just makes their point instead of casting doubt on it.
I think they are actually a bit more distantly related than 1.5 to 2 million years apart.
A dog genome sequence paper (Lindblad-Toh et al, 2005) revealed that Ethiopian wolves were actually more distantly related to dogs and wolves than the initial mtDNA studies on them suggested. Their last common ancestor was around 3-4 million years ago, and Ethiopian wolves are chemically interferile with dogs.
African wild dogs are more distantly related than that, more in the 5-6 million year range, according to the paper’s phylogenetic tree.
That’s about the same distance as exists between humans and the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos.
That’s why I chose that species.
Of course there is more variance between African wild dogs and domestic dogs than there is between humans and the two species of chimpanzee, but they have shorter generations than apes do. African wild dogs are actually more distantly related to dogs than gorillas are to people.
The human analogy for the coyote to dachshund is that that a coyote is to dachshund what another descendant of Homo erectus would be to us.
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. HL Menken
Unfortunately, the creationist crowd is making lots of bucks, and winning lots of elections.
Mmmkay. Can you tell one is different from all the others? Truly bipedal (doesn’t rely on knuckles), no fur (and relatively hairless in general), the ability to think in a lot more complex and abstract ways….
Plus purebreds are simply artificially created (via selective breeding) deformed mutants that originated from their normal wild ancestors, healthy wild ancestors. There’s no magical, mystical evolutionary transformation here and this is something that is an observable fact. The features of humans on the other hand are natural, healthy, and not a result of deformities. Human deformities can be recognized right away–they detract from the natural, healthy traits that most humans have. Thus you comparison is false and meaningless.
LOL
Another creatard!
BTW, you know that orangutans aren’t knuckle walkers, so I guess they aren’t apes either? And gibbons and siamangs are brachiators– must not be apes iether.
I love your Hovindism you just tried to pull.
I’m not going argue with you– because you are too retarded to get what I’m talking about.
Go back to being a deluded moron and keep on worshiping the genocidal sky daddy that is in the Old Testament.
There’s no hope for you.
This is not a creationist friendly blog.
And if you think chimps can’t think abstractly, then you are so stupid that you need to STFU.
No one thinks that’s a valid point anymore.
They can think abstractly. We have tons of evidence to show this.
BTW, you do know that dwarf and very small dogs existed long before modern breed formation?
And the small dog gene is derived from one found in Middle Eastern wolves?
Evolution IS observable. It’s been observed in wall lizards on islands in Croatia. It’s been observed in anoles that have been introduced to small Caribbean islands. It’s been observed in salsify that has been introduced to the US.
Never mind the overwhelming evidence in the DNA analysis. Never mind the fossil record.
Evolution is so obviously a fact that to deny it is to deny the color of the sky.
But you’ve shown your ignorance here. I don’t have time for you.
You’ve chosen to be a moron. And I pity your sorry ass.
You are holding onto Medieval superstition that will only result in more ignorance, more war, and more child molestation.
And I’m holding onto what is obviously true to anyone who has looked objectively at the evidence and the applications that have stemmed from knowing that evidence.
Evolution is true, whether you wish to be a moron or not.
All creationist claims, when carefully examined fall into two categories:
1. Known falsehoods that are either lies or sadly spouted in ignorance.
2. Blind speculation that can’t even rise to the level of a falsifiable hypothesis and thus cannot be classified as science.
You will not find one.
Throw one at me.
I’ve not found one that doesn’t fit either of those two categories.
A mutation that results in human jaw muscles being ‘defective’ (as in, much weaker than other apes) is what allowed our skulls to expand as our brains grew. The concept of ‘genetic defect’ is relative: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html
Humans probably have tons of ‘defective genes’ that happened to provide a benefit to us in our environment/lifestyle.
If humans we able to use their teeth and jaws more and got all the nutrients they require from an all-natural diet from birth free of man made toxins, the “defects” would magically disappear. So called “primitives” proved this–as they had perfectly straight teeth and well-developed jaws prior to being introduced to a modern diet. After that, their jaw sizes began to shrink as well and they suffered from malocclusion just as “civilized” man usually does. Many who reject “civilization” still have perfect teeth and healthy jaws free of “defects.”
Wrong.
Even wild predators have dental defects. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1383646?uid=3739968&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56210613183
My gosh, you’re reaching so far up your ass to find facts for your fairy tales I bet your fingers are touching your uvula.
My guess is you’ve never been around horses, but even horses that graze on natural pastures have problems with their teeth. It’s a very common occurrence for a horse to have to have teeth filed down, just so it can eat.
BTW, this is all evidence for evolution, for a creator as wise as your God would have created lions with teeth that don’t break and horses with teeth that always wear constantly.
I’m not talking about the effects of a healthy diet. I’m talking about a genetic mutation that actually causes muscular deformity in humans under certain conditions. EVERY human has it, and it’s why our bite strength is so much weaker compared to a great ape’s. You should really watch the NOVA show I linked to, it explains all of it. But I know you won’t.
A pseudoscientic explanation for something as simple as diet and environmental factors. Do you really trust everything you see on TV?
Bullshit. You wouldn’t know pseudoscience if it bit you on the ass.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
No. Neither Pai nor I believe everything we see on TV.
Do you believe everything your high school dropout preacher tells you?
Or everything that is in your scriptures which consist of the mythology of Bronze Age pastoralists and the pontification of citizens of the Roman Empire?
It appears that the debate with atheists have degenerated to ad hominem attacks and little else. This is getting boring and tedious and there is no point in saying anything further.
That’s because you have no evidence.
NONE. O.
Thanks for playing.
Pai is an atheist?
This is news to me!
You’re either a Young Earth Creationist or an Atheist, didn’t you know? =P
You don’t believe God created pyramid-building aliens? Why? It is truth in the Bible. He divined the truth on the golden plates! Delivered by a white salamander!
Apparently you think all atheists are like the hosts on “Ancient Aliens”. I am sad to tell you, no, we are not. However, your Mormon friend here, Religious Ron, is a Christian and believes in aliens and Egyptians.
However it is pointless to debate with creatards such as you because I have come to find that most gullible people are self-centered and think the universe revolve around them. If creationists cannot grasp the simple concept of global pollution and acid rain, and honestly believe that pollution is only local without far-reaching effect and that the earth renews itself for the benefit of mankind, then there is no real point in debating with them about human evolution.
Why? if they honestly believe some magical deity created a planet for them with renewable resources, then there is no way of honing in the point that humans are just like every other animal; after all, in a creationist’s world, humans are separate from animals.
The earth does renew itself. Does that mean with should take that for granted? No. But does that mean the sky is falling and man is capable of destroying the word? No.
And I agree certain types of pollution is a problem. Do you know how many pounds of carbon emissions are produced annually by the recycling process?
Boy, you are a dangerous loon.
Man can destroy the entire earth in very short order.
Ever heard of nuclear weapons?
I guess you haven’t.
Because, yes, they can destroy the earth.
I’m not going to comment on the climate stuff. It’s not my area of expertise, but from what I’ve read, you’re quite wrong about that, too.
It’s very dangerous when you would-be theocrats try to talk about science, when you’ve already given up science when you say that everything you come up with must comport with scripture.
Scripture was written by primitive people without any understanding that we currently.
To use that as justification for anything is a sign of madness or stupidity or both.
But it’s pretty Goddamn dangerous.
We were speaking of pollution, not nuclear weapons. Not that any of this supports you ape assertion.
Synapticohesion is banned.
He’s too stupid to comment in this blog. He’s proven this time and again, and what’s more, he thinks he’s smarter than me! LOL! Ignorant shits often think this.
He’s actually either a latent homosexual, who hates gays (of course!) or child molester, like all fundamentalist Christians.
I’ve tolerated as much of this bullshit as I can handle, and he obviously didn’t read my About Page when I said no creationist bullshit.
If he’s feeling bad because I hurt his feelings, he can go ask his preacher for a blowjob and that will make him feel better again.
You are a denialist little punk. You don’t know jack shit. You need to stop trying to talk down to people who know more than you.
And this comment will stay up, and I hope it’s a lesson to you.
When you’re an ignorant fool, don’t show up on blogs or message boards where the people are more educated than you are and try to spout this poppycock.
Don’t troll these blogs. You’re just wanting attention for your retarded little cartoon blog. I am removing the links to your site in every comment you’ve made.
Don’t come back. Don’t try this again somewhere else.
Got it, punk?
Try watching this video “There Is No Tommorrow”. It was funded and sponsored by a Jewish organization:
And all of this is backed by scientific literature.
a better choice not using domestics would probably be the cat –both “puma” and the lion are “cats” http://www.vitalpethealth.co.uk/cats/cat-articles/information-about-cats/233-the-evolution-of-the-cat
or bears. Pandas are pretty far removed from the brown bear.
Here is an excerpt from the transcript of ‘What Darwin Never Knew’ on the muscle defect in humans, for those reading who aren’t smug science-illiterate trolls:
“NARRATOR: Stedman was hunting for any new muscle-making genes. And so, as the human genome was sequenced, he began sifting through the vast mountains of data.
Eventually he found what he was looking for: a previously unidentified muscle-making gene. But there was something strange about this new gene. It didn’t look like any other muscle-making genes. Two letters were missing.
This gene should cause a disease.
HANSELL STEDMAN: It became very clear, early on, that if you have a mutation of this type, you get some serious muscle problem going on.
NARRATOR: Here was a puzzle. Why would humans carry a gene that was clearly damaged? Perhaps it was simply a mistake in the data.
Stedman decided to dig a little deeper and look in another human subject.
HANSELL STEDMAN: In the department of true confessions, we do certain experiments first on ourself, largely out of convenience. You can swab your own cheek and get working on some D.N.A.
NARRATOR: To his utter amazement, he found the same damaged gene in himself.
HANSELL STEDMAN: I’m seeing this in my own D.N.A., and it’s suggesting that, “Wait a minute. That means there’s a muscle disease here somewhere, a muscle disease that I’m unaware of.” And I thought it would be worth checking this out in some other members at the lab.
NARRATOR: A few swabs later and…
HANSELL STEDMAN: Sure enough, at the end of the day, every single person had the same glitch in their same D.N.A. at the same place.
NARRATOR: Here then was a real mystery. It seemed that this peculiar muscle-making gene was common in humans. But when he identified the same gene in apes, it was just like any other muscle-making gene.
Why was there such a difference? What did this gene enable one species to do that the other could not?
Stedman began to research the role of this gene in apes. And he found it made one particular kind of muscle. The muscle for chewing. In fact, the muscle used to close the jaw. In humans, that genetic glitch meant that we chew with just a fraction of the force of an ape.”
“This in itself was interesting, but where Stedman went next was truly intriguing, and highly controversial.
He drew a direct connection between the power of our jaw muscle and the evolution of the human brain. Stedman’s thinking goes like this: the skulls of apes and humans are made of several independent bone plates. They let our heads get bigger as we grow. The muscles for chewing pull against these plates, and in an ape, these forces can be enormous.
HANSELL STEDMAN: So in the gorilla, the muscle, the size of a human thigh muscle, lives here and has to go through this large space to power the jaw moving back and forth. We’re not talking biceps, triceps here, we’re talking quad here. This is an enormous muscle that has to come right through this hole here to power the jaw-closing apparatus.
NARRATOR: Stedman contends that all this muscle power forces an ape’s skull plates to fuse together at an early stage, and this puts limits on how much the brain can grow.
HANSELL STEDMAN: In a chimpanzee, gorilla or orangutan, those growth plates are pretty much shut down, closed for business, by about three, four years of age. In a human, they remain open for growth to perhaps the age 30.
NARRATOR: This, Stedman believes, is the key. A mutation in our jaw muscle allows the human skull to keep expanding into adulthood, creating a bigger space for our brain. And so our most important organ is able to grow.”