Joined: Nov. 2006
Uf, it seems you are having hard time here. Your arguments refuting Adam Smith's opinions are very weak I would say.
1) If you think that Schindewolf was wrong, do you think the same about Gould and Eldredge? You know their conception of Punctuated Equilibria. Do you really think that Schindewolf was as wrong as was Gould?
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.
Btw. the great Dawkins seeing the picture from 19 century painted by 17 years old yougster came to this ridiculous conclusion:
Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard?
Bernard has never carried a cask of brandy. It is only in Dawkins imagination that he "is strong enough" to carry it. Maybe he would be surprised if he checked it in reality.
Another Dawkins fantasy - I can discuss it in detail at another thread if you like - is his explanation of origin of mimicry. He often offers only his imagination instead of facts .
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-