It has been almost one hundred fifty years since Darwin published his infamous On the Origin of Species in 1859. No species origin has ever been described, however, not even the ubiquitous and popular pup. Dog breeding has resulted in over 400 different varieties, from the Alsatian to the Great Dane, but each remains Canis familiaris — dog. Regardless, evolutionism demands a purely naturalistic explanation for canine origin. Such insistence has led wildlife ecologist I. L. Brisbin to state, "Everything that anyone publishes about the origin of the dog is controversial."1
Let's see why this is so. The first problem encountered — a major dilemma for Darwinists—is molecular data (DNA sequences) compared to fossils. An essential structure of the typical cell is the mitochondrion. Known as the cellular "powerhouse," critical chemical reactions occur there, producing the energy compound ATP. Researchers have found that mitochondria contain short segments of DNA, and that this mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited solely from the mother. Secular scientists have since attempted to use mtDNA to trace cryptic evolutionary pathways. Evolutionist James Trefil states, "the amount of difference in [mitochondrial] DNA sequences between any two groups is taken to be a measure of the length of time since those groups shared a common ancestor."2 They shouldn't place too much stock in this technique, however, because "mitochondrial sequences have notoriously high and uneven rates of change."3
Despite using this questionable dating method, molecular biologists assert mitochondrial genomes show dogs arising some 135,000 years ago. This does not agree with the fossils found in sedimentary rock layers. "The earliest accepted dog fossils date from just 14,000 years ago" according to paleontology.4 Which is correct? Not only that, but "the date and place of domestication [of dogs] continues to be a mystery as well."5
Creationists maintain that dogs were created as dogs and will always be dogs including their dog varieties such as hyenas, wolves, foxes, and jackals. An interesting statement is made by evolutionist Peter Savolainen in the journal Science and sounds almost like he is referring to a pair of dogs trotting off the Ark, "we can say now there was probably one geographic origin [of dogs]."6 Evolutionist E. H. Colbert suggests this geographic area as eastern Turkey7 — the Mt. Ararat region! Dogs undoubtedly followed people during their post-Flood migration, which included crossing a possible land bridge between Asia and North America.8 Indeed, according to DNA taken from fossil canines, dogs of the Western Hemisphere have Asian ancestries.
_____________________________
1. Pennisi, E., "A Shaggy Dog History" Science, Nov. 22, 2002, v. 298, p. 1540.
2. Trefil, J., 101 Things You Don't Know about Science, Mariner Books, 1996, p. 289.
3. Morell, V., "The Origin of Dogs," Science, June 13, 1997, v. 276, p. 1647.
4. Pennisi, p. 1541 (see also T. Gura, Nature, v. 406, pp. 230-233).
5. Pennisi, p. 1540.
6. Morell, p. 1647.
7. Colbert, E., Evolution of the Vertebrates, 5th ed., Wiley-Liss, p. 381.
8. Pennisi, p. 1541.
