The Beginning of Dogs
It may be interesting to know that there are certain things that microbes-to-mutt evolutionists and biblical creationists are in agreement. Then we diverge. Dogs originally came from a wolf-like ancestor, and humans managed to domesticate them. The when, where, and how of this has no agreement. But that is to be expected.
Materialists fallaciously assert that the varieties of dogs are examples of evolution, even though most arrived on the scene in the last 200 years or so through artificial selection. Such changes have definite limitations. No, breeds are not separate species; they are all in the same subspecies. The evolutionary model for dog origins is ineffective and evolutionists are in disagreement — they should be in disagreement, since they have no transitional forms to support their speculations. They are also in disagreement on the origin of the domestication of the critters, basically evosplained with doggerel.
Creationists are working on their own models. We believe that dogs are all a part of the same created kind, and when secular presuppositions are stripped from the science, dog diversification and domestication are compatible with the post-Flood biblical timeline. A creation science perspective with biblical history cannot be dogmatic —
"Not funny, Cowboy Bob!"
Okay. Creationists admit that the model for the dog timeline is speculative, it also makes a great deal of sense.
 |
| Credit: PIXNIO / bicanski |
Creationists are working on their own models. We believe that dogs are all a part of the same created kind, and when secular presuppositions are stripped from the science, dog diversification and domestication are compatible with the post-Flood biblical timeline. A creation science perspective with biblical history cannot be dogmatic —
"Not funny, Cowboy Bob!"
Okay. Creationists admit that the model for the dog timeline is speculative, it also makes a great deal of sense.
To read the article, click on "Creationist modelling of the origins of Canis lupus familiaris—ancestry, timing, and biogeography". They have several related articles ad the end of that one. While I'm at it, you may also like some of their relatives: "Coyotes Have Gone to the Dogs" and "Post-Flood Dispersion and the Red Fox".Much work has been done by evolutionary scientists attempting to trace the origins of Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dogs). While many insights from this research are helpful, there are good scientific reasons to reject the proposed timeframe for the domestication of wolves (Canis lupus), the proposed phylogenetic relatedness of the Canidae family to other families in the evolutionary tree, and the use of variation within domestic dogs as evidence for the evolution of canids from the same common ancestor as all other living things. In contrast, inferences from the historical biblical texts provide a better model for the biological variation observed within domestic dogs and other canids, as well as for potential timeframes and geographical locales of initial (post-Flood) domestication of wolves into dogs. In light of biblical chronogenealogies used in dating the Flood and Babel events, initial post-Flood domestication would have taken place c. 2521–2200 BC. Possible narrower date ranges as well as geographical locales of initial domestication are given in light of different sets of assumptions concerning the chronology of biblical events and interpretations of the current scientific data.