Canidae: Created or Evolved?

Since the evolution debate is going to the dogs, and, since many people are dogmatic about it, and, since it is a dog eat dog world, it is only fitting to look at canidae..  ;)

What does man's best friend have to say about creation vs common ancestry?

The observable, repeatable, historical, and scientific evidence within canidae offers compelling evidence for a Creator, and the model of ID  (Intelligent Design), and conflicts with the belief and model of Common Ancestry (CA).  These same arguments and observations are there with felidae, equidae, and other haplotypes with genetic evidence of descent.  Micro evolution variability is clearly evident, within the canid haplogroup, but the leap to Macro evolution, or the belief in common ancestry,  is unwarranted, and is an extrapolation unjustified by the facts.


I read the following study several years ago, and found a wealth of information about canidae.. many old beliefs or assumptions have been corrected by hard genetic evidence. It has interesting facts about canids, & their genetic base.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/8/990.full

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin! Here is a summary of some of the points, with quotes from the study in italics:

1. The ancestor of wolves, coyotes, dogs, and other canidae is unknown, appears suddenly, and contained all the genetic information for each haplotype. the origin of the huge morphological diversity that led Darwin to his speculation remains largely unknown.
2. Most of the variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old. Recent studies show that the origin of most dog breeds may derive from very recent selective breeding practices and are probably <200 yr old.
3. Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years to produce an evolutionary trait such as seen in canidae. selection acts upon existing variability
4. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent, and conflicts with the time frame in the CA model. It is remarkable that the potential for such large diversification existed in the ancestral wolf population. This would be expected in the ID model. 
5. The recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety. Furthermore, the time since domestication seems insufficient to generate substantial additional genetic diversity.

The child branches within canidae show REDUCING variability, as the diverse genetic information became localized in the various haplogroups.

The mtDNA provides clear evidence of the descendancy within canidae. The time frame is incompatible with the CA model, but fits perfectly in the ID model.

You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA:



From the link:
"Phylogenetic tree of wolf (W), dog (D), and coyote (C) mtDNA sequences. The tree was constructed using a Bayesian approach. The same topology was obtained with a neighbor-joining approach. Support is indicated at the nodes as percent bootstrap support for 1000 neighbor-joining replicates and Bayesian posterior probabilities. Four clades of dog sequences (I to IV) are indicated as in Vilà et al. (1997). Internal dog branches are marked in orange, and internal wolf branches are marked in light blue. The branch leading to wolf haplotype W1 was basal to the rest of the tree and it was also considered internal. Internal branches that could not be conclusively associated to dogs or to wolves are indicated in discontinuous green."

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestral line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canidae not listed. All this does is PROVE descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years.

Canidae shows diversity and adaptability. There is no evidence they shared ancestry with felids, equids, or any other haplotype. We can follow the MICRO variations within canidae, but there is NOTHING to suggest they were once of a different genetic structure. Canids have always been canids, and always produce canids, though with reduced variability, as we reach the ends of the branches in their haplotree.

Evidence for creation:

1. The ancestral canid (erroneously called wolf, in this study) contained all the variability for canidae we see today.  There is no evidence of traits being 'created' from hypothetical mutation processes.
2. The ancestral canid appears abruptly, full of variety, with no evidence of descent from any other phylogenetic structure.  The ID model would expect this, while the CA model can only speculate about hypothetical 'ancestors!' of canidae, with no evidence.  A belief is proffered with only assertion and assumption.
3. Canidae mtDNA shows descendancy, clearly following the branching out of the canid line, to the current tips of the branches.  Lower levels of diversity are observed, as the tips of the phylogenetic tree is reached.  This observation is compatible with the ID model,  but conflicts with the CA model of constant injecting of new traits.
4. Dating methods are contrived, circularly, to fit the assumptions of CA. There are no credible or sourced facts for the assumptions and assertions of the massive dates asserted in most studies.  Terms like, 'assumed', 'putative', 'from evolutionary theory', and other circular dating methods are used to bluff an appearance of 'settled science!', for the dates projected, but in fact have no empirical basis.

The next time you pat your dog on the head, join with him in marveling at the complexity, wonder, and diversity of this unique creation, and the Creator who has crafted such a specimen.  Tell him about the awesome wonder of this unique creature, while he wags and agrees with joyful concurrence.  He won't recoil from you in disgust, or call you names, or bite you for suggesting that he owes his existence to The Creator,  not a promordial, godless ooze.  Some people believe  dogs are smarter and nicer than people..  ..maybe they are right!  :D