Scientists in Britain are saying that research involving Saint Bernard’s has provided evidence of natural selection, the mechanism that drives evolution, in action:
The St Bernard breed of dogs has disproved the theory of creationism, a UK-based team of researchers has said.
Biologists from the University of Manchester say that changes to the skull shape of St Bernards over the last 120 years “can only be explained” via evolution and natural selection.
The research team analysed arrived at their findings by examining 47 St Bernard skulls donated to the National History Museum in Berne by Swiss breeders.
They claim that modern dogs have much broader skulls and more pronounced ridges, while a steeper angle is evident between their nose and foreheads.
“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,” commented lead researcher Dr Chris 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.”
Dr Klingenberg explained that the features highlighted by biologists were “exactly” the features regarded as desirable by breeders.
“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,” he writes in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
And another nail goes into the coffin of superstition.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:30 am
You can’t disprove creationism. This just reinforces the notion that creationism is scientific and therefore disprovable.
Further, their “evidence” supports the creationist argument, because their example was not “natural selection” but “artificial selection”, as it involved, as they said, no “physical advantage”, but rather was driven by breeders.
Further still, the time period belies any real “evolution”, as it only covers 120 years, the time over which the breeders selected for traits.
Which brings the last problem — this was not a new trait, simply a forced selection of a trait by designed breeding patterns by an intelligent agent.
So unless these scientists actually are arguing FOR intelligent design as the basis of evolution, they probably should stop trying to hard to debunk a largely religious belief.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Creationism is bunk, therefore it does not need debunking.