Study casts doubt on creationism
October 24, 2007The 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.”
Source: University of Manchester
17 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
The story of creation itself plays out much like a story, an explanation for the creation and appearance of the creatures seen on the earth now. Almost every world religion has its own creation story, not just Christianity!
Before the story of the creation as told in the Bible was ever penned down, it was probably orally told for generations, making it a story, a figurative story used to help explain the existance of life as seen by the storyteller.
As the Bible itself was written by human hands, spiritual inspiration nonwithstanding, it is still a HUMAN account of the creation of the earth. It is meant as just that--a story of explanation to convey the power and intelligence of a divine creator.
Religion is contextual. These stories were written in the context of the time. Religion is fluid, not static! Its teachings an interpretations change from generation to generation, culture to culture.
What was written down hundreds of years ago fit with the context of the time, but times have changed. I am in no way trying to debase the teachings of the Bible, but I am merely trying to point out that its meaning must be searched for through a contextual filter.
Try to read and iterpret it and glean its meaning in a manner than the original author (storyteller) would be trying to convey to his or her original audience. Then realize that this particular interpretation is synonymous for that culture and that time period, one that has since drastically changed.
I am not trying to imply that the fundamental points in the Bible may not have changed. Merely try to realize that our culture should realize that their implications are subject to the lense of the current culture and are therefore fluid, not static.
I.E. Please be open-minded when it comes to interpretations of religious texts, realizing that they were written in a manner tailored for the audience of the time. A static religious doctrine cannot work with a fluid culture. The religous tennats should have a fluid interpretation in order to be relevant to a fluid culture.
very interesting
Either you agree with the scientific model for establishing truth or you are satisfied with the belief model.
The scientific model employs logic and observation to validate its claims.
The belief model employs neither logic nor observation and states no validation of its claims are necessary; quite the contrary. The sole justification for its claims is the proclomations of the believer usually in the form of some emotional context (i.e. "I believe God exists because I feel His presence.").
My money is on Science for determining what is true. One only has to look at the success of Science based fields such as electronics, medicine, astronomy, and chemistry to see the success of the scientific process. Yet with Biology the religious community will ignore its claims even though the same methods are employed. Astonishing.
Finally, there is definitely a contradiction between Evolution and Creationism just as there is a contradiction between Science and Belief. The former tests for truth and the latter just feels true.
"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."
No it isn't! No it doesn't!
The St Bernard evolved from the primordial ooze due to selective breeding.
I don't think so.
"So the real question is how did the thing that started changing ever come into existence in the first place? Evolution cannot answer this question, and neither can science."
Evolution is not here to explain the start, only what happened after. And there was once a time science could not explain a great many things.
Can science unreservedly explain existence? No.
But I'd put my faith in science eventually having the explanation any day over the explanation being found in a superstitious, superfluous book of fairy tales that only has the tenuous proof of "It's true because I was told it was" or "It's true because I believe it is".
I say to the creationists out there, which one do you mean? The Christian God? The Hindu God? Allah? Amaterasu? Jupiter? Zeus? Ra? Which one are you saying created us as most have their own take on how the universe and earth was created, each have their own timeline and when it all came to be.
So cmon creationists, which one is right? And prove your agruments, because, us evolutionists can!
Some of their arguments are specious, to be sure, but some should be carefully studied and need to be addressed in a serious and scientific manner by those who would hold to the scientific truth of inter-species evolution.
About the article itself: The Genesis account says that "they were created according to their kind" this allows for a lot of "evolution" to take place. A St. Bernard is still a canine--slope- or steep-headed.
Science has shown and disproved the genesis notions put forth by the bible. The timelines, the origination of man & woman, animals, plants, Noah and his crew, etc.
So, we came from Adam & Eve huh? About, what, 6000 years ago? Ok, we'll ignore the notion of Egypt, Babylon, Sumeria and any other ancient civilization pre 5000BC. Creationists argue that we all stemmed from those two people, only a few thousand years ago? Or are you picking & choosing which "bits" of the bible you want to support?
Sorry, Bible, religion, creationists, scientology, rubbish...
So you would rather put your "faith" in science? VERY INTERESTING. I thought that science was about facts not about "faith". You just destroyed your argument but are too blinded by prejudice to even realize it. Somehow I doubt that you will ever see the scientific answer to the question of existence in your lifetime. And afterwards will be too late to confirm your "faith". How sad.
This article is the weakest argument I have ever read yet has the loudest chest thumping title imaginable.
What predictions does the so called %u201CTheory%u201D of Evolution make? That change happens and always has? WOW!!! What a revelation. Reminds me of %u201CThe poor shall always be with you%u201D. Let%u2019s call that the %u201CTheory of Socialism%u201D.
No, It's your imagination.
Merak, that is true for God, but cannot be true for the universe. The notion that the universe could go through repeated "Big Bangs" is incompatible with the laws of physics. Read "The Fabric of the Cosmos" if you are interested in finding out why this is so.