Biologist Jonathan Wells wrote a book a number of years ago entitled Icons of Evolution. In it, he sought to demonstrate how some commonly cited examples of neo-Darwinian evolution, such as similarities in structure among vertebrate limbs, are not supported by actual scientific evidence. Thanks to something I recently received in the mail, I think I may have discovered an icon of evolution that Wells didn't write about--the schnoodle (a dog that is a cross between a schnauzer and a poodle).
What I received was a booklet from the Smithsonian Associates, an organization connected with the Smithsonian Institution, which sponsors lectures, tours, and classes relating to "culture and ideas, art and design, science and nature, past and present, and studio arts." The blurb for a lecture with the title "Unnatural Selection: Katrina van Grouw's Evolutionary Illustrations," reads as follows:
Is your schnoodle...an example of evolutionary success? If it appears to have the necessary traits for survival in the company of humans, the answer is yes. And it didn't take eons to happen. Unlike wild animal species, domesticated animals provide a more observable model of evolution in action. But evolution's mechanics are often hard to explain.
Katrina van Grouw, a natural science illustrator, has found a way through the problem, fusing science through art in her beautifully illustrated new book, Unnatural Selection, which illuminates evolutionary patterns. Following Charles Darwin's analogy drawn 150 years ago comparing selective breeding in domestic animals to natural selection, van Gouw maintains that identical traits can occur in both wild and domestic animals and are governed by the same evolutionary principles...
Where to begin? First of all, if by "evolution" we mean evolution of the Darwinian kind, which operates purely by random, unguided changes, then no, your schoodle is NOT "an example of evolutionary success," given that a schoodle is the result of the purposive efforts of human beings to create a new variety of dog with certain characteristics. That is why the emergence of the schnoodle "didn't take eons to happen"--it didn't require extremely long periods of time to allow chance to operate. Furthermore, the writer seems to be confusing two types of evolution--microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution (which is an undeniable reality of biology) involves changes to a species that do not transform it into another species, while macroevolution (which, ultimately, is speculative) leads to the emergence of a totally new species. A schnauzer and a poodle are both breeds of dogs, and a mixture of the two breeds is still a dog--no new species has been created.
In short, despite the undoubted cleverness of his or her conceit, the writer of this blurb rather nicely illustrates what happens when scientific concepts are not clearly understood. It also demonstrates how the effort to "sell" Darwinism to nonscientists can be based on misleading arguments.
Image of schnoodle from Wikimedia Commons