Topic RSS | Reply to topic
Author Post

Floyd


Member

Posted Tue Nov 25th, 2008 5:25am Post subject: QI Book
First post so please be gentle with me!

I absolutely adore QI but, working abroad as I do, I'm unable to see the programme anymore so I have to make do with the marvelous QI book.

However I am getting a fearsome kicking on another message board because I dared to use two facts from the book regarding dogs. Basically the book states that the sheer diversity of breeds of dogs is a mystery. Also contrary to Darwinian principles of evolution the rapid way in which new breeds are created (the example of the Doberman pinscher breed is given) is a puzzle too.

Can anyone direct me to where I would find information on the subject of the diversification of dog breeds vis-à-vis Darwinian Theory and where I would find evidence that the speed of new breed development of dogs goes against Darwinian principles.

Back to top

dulieGirl


Member

Posted Tue Nov 25th, 2008 2:01pm Post subject: QI Book
contrary to Darwinian principles of evolution the rapid way in which new breeds are created (the example of the Doberman pinscher breed is given) is a puzzle too.

Can anyone direct me to where I would find information on the subject of the diversification of dog breeds vis-à-vis Darwinian Theory and where I would find evidence that the speed of new breed development of dogs goes against Darwinian principles.
I don't know of a reference regarding the subject, but it seems kind of a silly arguement (and I'm not meaning any offense toward you). There were aspect of "Darwinism" that were incorrect, which is why I always get a good laugh out of creationist arguements that use "Darwinism" as an example. Yeah, Darwinism and the theory of evolution, not quite the same thing, thanks though. Darwin got a few things wrong, like his theory that men were more evolved than women, but we know that genetically human female genes evolved first.

We know that timelines are incorrect too, in terms of how long it takes for species to change. Most of this research has been quite recent, fruit flies being the biggest example of species changes happening in just a few generations in stead of hundreds or thousands of years. Foxes being breed for their pelts in captivity showed that animals can begin changing in just 2 to 3 generations, causing their fur to remain white and black instead like pups of all black like adults, thus making them useless to the fur trade. An investigation into a group of salmon found 2 new groups after less than a 100 years of seclusion.

And what must be remembered is that dog breeds are not a different species; they are all genetically the same species. And dog breeds aren't naturally made, humans made them. And we can easily force the changes we're looking for that would not be able to come about naturally in the wild. And the fact that if dogs were in the wild, for some of them, their physical attributes would cause them to die out there on their own and not be able to pass on their genes. So if nature had it's way some of the more "useless" breeds would die out and you'd see less diversity.

Even though Darwin didn't get it totally right, it's not really equal to compare something he's observing and commenting on in nature, and something human beings are going into and intentionally altering. Like say, bananas, for instance.

Back to top

Floyd


Member

Posted Wed Nov 26th, 2008 11:52am Post subject: QI Book
contrary to Darwinian principles of evolution the rapid way in which new breeds are created (the example of the Doberman pinscher breed is given) is a puzzle too.

Can anyone direct me to where I would find information on the subject of the diversification of dog breeds vis-à-vis Darwinian Theory and where I would find evidence that the speed of new breed development of dogs goes against Darwinian principles.
I don't know of a reference regarding the subject, but it seems kind of a silly arguement (and I'm not meaning any offense toward you). There were aspect of "Darwinism" that were incorrect, which is why I always get a good laugh out of creationist arguements that use "Darwinism" as an example. Yeah, Darwinism and the theory of evolution, not quite the same thing, thanks though. Darwin got a few things wrong, like his theory that men were more evolved than women, but we know that genetically human female genes evolved first.

We know that timelines are incorrect too, in terms of how long it takes for species to change. Most of this research has been quite recent, fruit flies being the biggest example of species changes happening in just a few generations in stead of hundreds or thousands of years. Foxes being breed for their pelts in captivity showed that animals can begin changing in just 2 to 3 generations, causing their fur to remain white and black instead like pups of all black like adults, thus making them useless to the fur trade. An investigation into a group of salmon found 2 new groups after less than a 100 years of seclusion.

And what must be remembered is that dog breeds are not a different species; they are all genetically the same species. And dog breeds aren't naturally made, humans made them. And we can easily force the changes we're looking for that would not be able to come about naturally in the wild. And the fact that if dogs were in the wild, for some of them, their physical attributes would cause them to die out there on their own and not be able to pass on their genes. So if nature had it's way some of the more "useless" breeds would die out and you'd see less diversity.

Even though Darwin didn't get it totally right, it's not really equal to compare something he's observing and commenting on in nature, and something human beings are going into and intentionally altering. Like say, bananas, for instance.

Thanks for this Dulie girl. I'm not trying to say that evoluton is wrong only that the QI book says that the speed of breed creation in dogs is against Darwins principles. I've read into this now and found that Darwin himseld alluded to the variety of dogs hypothesising that the reason was they were descended from a number of wolves and wild dogs species which was recently found to be incorrect as they are descended purely from Gray wolves complicating the issue still further. Also there is recognised unknowns in the sheer variety of dog breeds which although it owes a lot to human intervention it cannot be explained fully by that alone far as I can understand it.
The bit I'm struggling with is the bit about the speed of the Doberman breed's appearence. of course selective breeding would speed up the process but the book implies that even so the speed of this new breed's appearence is quite extraodinary

Back to top