Creationist Wisdom #968: Puppy Eyes Prove Design

You remember the recent research about The evolution of puppy dog eyes (that PhysOrg article is where our pic comes from), and you also remember the unsurprising creationist reaction. We posted about what the Discoveroids said as a typical example: Behe Says Puppy Dog Eyes Didn’t Evolve.

Today we have another creationist reaction, this time it’s a letter-to-the-editor in the Sun Chronicle of Attleboro, Massachusetts. The title is Theory behind ‘puppy eyes’ is quite a stretch, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Michael. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

The front page article about the evolution of dogs (“Behind those puppy eyes? Evolution,” June 19, 2019) demonstrates the inadequateness of modern evolutionary science.

Michael doesn’t link to the newspaper’s earlier headline, and we won’t bother searching for it because you already know the news. He says:

The premise of the article is that dogs developed certain facial muscles because this “gave dogs an advantage when interacting with people.” Really? Exactly how did this evolutionary process work? Did dogs will it? Did people will it? The sub headline claims “we may be partly to blame.” Did this all happen without any input from a designer?

Michael obviously has a keen mind! He tells us:

It seems that man’s best friend appeared on the scene about the same time as man.

Uh, not quite. The Wikipedia article Origin of the domestic dog says that dogs diverged from wolves “between 40,000–20,000 years ago.” Michael continues:

Dogs are designed [Designed!] to endear themselves to man, and they are designed to be easy to breed. Yet mainstream modern science, with its Neo-Darwinism [Yuk!], postulates that this all happened from random, unintentional processes. [That’s absurd!] To accept that these magnificent creatures resulted from random processes requires an unscientific leap of faith.

Egad, a leap of faith! Let’s read on:

Of course, one advantage of believing in Darwinian evolution is the ability to rule God out of the equation. [Gasp!] An atheistic and agnostic scientific community is grasping at an improbable theory in order to avoid admitting that all of nature exhibits the undeniable evidence of design. [Undeniable!] To admit otherwise would undermine their religious and scientific outlook.

Michael has it all figured out. Another excerpt:

Change is obviously needed in our accepted interpretation of origin science. For starts, in articles like this, I suggest we substitute “design” for “evolution.”

Brilliant! That should be mandatory! Now we come to the end:

And if people like the appealing expressions that give dogs an advantage, let’s admit the possibility that people and dogs were designed this way.

Well, dear reader, why won’t you at least admit the possibility? We know why. It’s because you’re a hell-bound Darwinist fool!

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #968: Puppy Eyes Prove Design

  1. “resulted from random processes requires an unscientific leap of faith.”
    Fortunately it’s Mickey who leaps, not evolutionary biologists.

  2. See the “Domesticated red fox” in Wikipedia.
    BTW, the Wikipedia article says “Similar research was carried out in Denmark with American mink.” and cites: Price, Edward (2008). Principles and Applications of Domestic Animal Behavior. Cambridge University Press. p. 229. ISBN 9781780640556.

  3. Eric Lipps

    The premise of the article is that dogs developed certain facial muscles because this “gave dogs an advantage when interacting with people.” Really? Exactly how did this evolutionary process work? Did dogs will it? Did people will it? The sub headline claims “we may be partly to blame.” Did this all happen without any input from a designer?

    This one’s almost too easy.

    The history of the domestication of dogs is actually pretty well documented from fossil remains and supported by cultural studies among the Inuit, who not only keep rather wolf-like dogs but also frequently interbreed them with wild wolves. (The biological relationship is so close that dogs have actually been reclassified as a subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus familiaris.)Then there’s the famous fox study in the USSR (watch the video or scroll down a bit to read about it), in which over generations a population of foxes was not only successfully bred for human-favoring social behavior but also, quite without the researchers’ effort, developed doglike physical traits.

    Now, technically this isn’t “natural” selection in the conventional sense, but it does answer our creationist friend’s snide question. No “will,” human or canine, was involved in the physical changes observed, and none was needed. The researcher simply bred for tameness; the physical changes came as a surprise.

  4. Jim Roberts

    There’s also the probability that humans also bred for appearance of domesticity, and not consciously. That is, dogs with more expressive eyes are, quite obviously, easier to read when it comes to body language, and so more likely to be selected for breeding.

  5. “On the Origin of Species” has the famous example of artificial selection in the breeding of pigeons.

  6. TomS: quite right, but I would bet a substantial amount that Michael, and perhaps all IDers, never read On the Origin of Species. It’s way too complex for most of them.

  7. @EricL: “The biological relationship is so close that dogs have actually been reclassified as a subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus familiaris.”
    It gets even better (or worse, for Mickey). Several dog breeds can not produce fertile offspring with gray wolves. Canis Lupus Familiaris is a species in progress.
    Another perfect example of evolution being gradual (without people or the animals themselves “willing” is reversed speciation, ie hybridization of the brown bear and the polar bear. So in honor of creacrapper Michael I present some porn:

    Of course he will reply with “variation within a kind”.

  8. Techreseller

    The most interesting thing about these sort of diatribes is the projection. Change the language to be against religion, substituting the nouns of evolution, natural selection and the like for religion, goddidit, etc and you almost have a coherent paragraph. Especially with the leap of faith clauses.