I'm no expert, but it seems to me that Dingos illustrate a methodological problem for Darwinism. In Darwinism, a traditional way to establish common descent is to string fossils together in a presumptive phylogenic tree.
Dingos looks uncannily like domestic dogs. So what are they? Are they domestic dogs that reverted? Are they wild canines (related to dogs, but not dogs). Are they hybrids–the issue of domestic dogs interbreeding with wild canines? From what I've read, scientists are unable to sort that out.
This is despite the fact that since Dingos are a living species, we know more about them than the fossil remains of extinct species. In addition, the white man colonized Australia a few centuries ago, so if they are either hybrids or feral dogs, that should be easier to trace historically.
If scientists can't even sort out the evolutionary sequence for Dingos, how can they hope to sort out the evolutionary sequence extinct species from fossils scattered in time and space?
It's always easier to make up stories that can't be validated and imbue them with the air of scientific discovery than to rush to conclusion on something that is far more likely to be disproven.
ReplyDelete