[in a list of alleged counterexamples to an old earth]
6.The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
69 comments
I just don't even know where to start with this!
Yeah, because all dogs are racists (breedists) and will naturally only mate with their own breed.
The pure breeds increase with time, Dummkopf!
"#1215187
Yeah, because all dogs are racists (breedists) and will naturally only mate with their own breed.
The pure breeds increase with time, Dummkopf! "
What?
Hey FedUp.....there's no such breed a a peek-a-poo. You have a badly bred mutt with a fancy name.
And there's purebreds that aren't "very very recent".
Saluki, Chow Chow, Shar-Pei, Basenji, Akita Inu...all ancient dog breeds.
First off, way to contradict yourself.
Also, LC, yes, purebred dogs aren't natural as they've been selected for certain traits and only bred with dogs that their owners see fit.
EDIT: Damnit beaten to it several times over!
Also, purebred dogs, because of all the inbreeding, unlike mutts, have high chances of getting things like Collie Eye Syndrom or Degenerative Mylopathy(sp?) (which is basically MS for german shepards) and so forth.
6.The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs increases over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are only 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
Therefore the earth is only 6000 years old.
Another example from the article:
"The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure."
They forgot to mention the existence of Conservapedia.
Just visited the "article". I'm not a mathematician but can any one explain the "logic" behind this statement from the beginning of the piece.
Have a read of some of the other "Counterexamples"
there's the usual "moon receding from earth" and Grand Canyon whargaarrbbl.
but "The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period" Ignoring the continual formation of rock arches.
and "The lack of erosion between rock layers"
and "The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining"
and "Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species"
To adapt a quote from Blazing Saddles "Ooh, baby, you are so talented! - and they are so ..."
From the same article:
5.The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.
You see this pot Andy?:image
It's from the Banpo phase in modern China. It's from around 4800 BCE so about 1800 years older than your so called "nothing found older than." and that isn't even the oldest.
You see this mask?:image
It's from around 7000 BCE, or 4000 years before 3000 BC. Don't even get me started on the various cave paintings found around the world.
@Adey
If each example has a 10% chance of being right, then they each have a 90% chance of being wrong. In order for the Earth to be old, ALL of them must be wrong.
The chance of that (assuming their initial assumptions are correct) is 0.9^25 = 0.07, or 7%. As far as I can tell, the math is correct.
Of course, their initial assumptions are wrong, the chance of any of them is FAR less than 10%, and the Earth is actually billions of years old, but apart from that, not bad.
Yeah, and the declining number of languages shows how little time has passed since the Tower of Babel.
Oh shit, I shouldn't have said that, they're bound to add it to the list!
OK so what evidence do you have that at one point in history all dogs were purebred breeds, and at what point in time? How do you know that it didn't take dogs billions of years to crossbreed to the point where they're at today?
And of course this is assuming your argument has merit and doesn't take into consideration the fact that "purebred" dogs were bred by humans for their particular traits.
"None
Hey FedUp.....there's no such breed a a peek-a-poo. You have a badly bred mutt with a fancy name.
And there's purebreds that aren't "very very recent".
Saluki, Chow Chow, Shar-Pei, Basenji, Akita Inu...all ancient dog breeds."
You think those breeds aren't 'very very recent' in EVOLUTIONARY TERMS??? LOL
Okay, let's assume your argument is correct. Here are the problems with your argument even then:
1) You're assuming that dogs existed for the entire lifespan of the Earth.
2) You never demonstrated how many breeds of dog ever existed you just claim that there are only 100 so we have no frame of reference to gauge the implications of that number. For example, if I claimed that I had only 7 gallons of fuel left in my vehicle you can't tell whether that's good or bad unless you know what the frame of reference is; there's a huge difference between me talking about a Dodge Challenger having that much fuel left and a Boeing 747.
3) You never demonstrated that cross-breeding actually reduces the number of breeds that exist or the rate at which these breeds disappear.
And that's only if I accept, uncritically, everything you just said.
The "pure-bred bred dogs" is the wolfses distant inbred cousin. Thats how we's comed up with the "pure-bred bred dogs" which sugests that trailer parks might be older than the earth in that one book that tells how the earth was craeted 6 days twice in diferent ways and in a not same order.
Thought I'd try my hand at word salad.
The "pure-bred bred dogs" is the wolfses distant inbred cousin. Thats how we's comed up with the "pure-bred bred dogs" which sugests that trailer parks might be older than the earth in that one book that tells how the earth was craeted 6 days twice in diferent ways and in a not same order.
Thought I'd try my hand at word salad.
Except whether a breed of dog is "pure" or not is essentially simply a racist distinction, and if a given hybrid becomes popular enough and is consistently inbred it can essentially be viewed as its own "breed" given enough generations. "Pure" breeds of dogs are formed by selectively breeding similar dogs together for several generations, and that sort of thing tends to require incest, so way to support cousin-kissing.
Dog is just a modified wolf; modified by man through careful selective breeding over hundreds of years. The DNA of a Dog and a Wolf is so similar (99%+) that they can crossbreed without any problems whatsoever. Hence, there is no such thing as a "natural" breed of dog. Retardopedia continues to be clueless.
Also, there are more than 300 recognized and recorded breeds of dogs not including the dozens that have gone extinct, like the "Classic British Bulldog".
[Edit:] Here is a good list with pictures from a REAL web-based encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds
and "The lack of erosion between rock layers"
Okay, WHAT? Do these people realize that the layers of rock are seperated by MORE ROCK? What in the holy mother of Morgan Freeman would even CAUSE erosion between layers?
I'm not sure how you could have, "100 different natural, pure breeds" if dogs naturally cross breed and...
YOU'RE ASSUMING A GODDAMNED WORLD-WIDE FLOOD THAT KILLED ALL BUT TWO OF EVERY "KIND" OF ANIMAL. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?
There is only one natural breed of dog: WOLF.
The fact that people keep using dogs as evidence against evolution really says a lot about the level of education these people have.
In fact, the modern definition of breeds was developed in the 19th century. German shepherds, golden retrievers, Labrador retrievers, poodles and the other common breeds seen today are mostly less than a couple hundred years old, and their modern forms generally didn't appear until the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries. Try comparing a modern breed to its closest equivalent from 1850, and let me know if they're all that similar.
That whole page is a priceless lolz factory. Everybody should have a copy so that they know exactly how NOT to do any kind of encyclopedia article (or academic thesis for that matter).
"Biology
References:
Um, no. You know positively nothing about animal husbandry and dog breeding. For starters, the pure-bred lines are not allowed to crossbreed. In other words, you are completely wrong.
Andy is every bit as 'bananas' as Ray...
Blaidd Drwg, I just got a mental image that will require Clorox bleach to remove from my brain. Thanks a lot.
Hey, 'only natural breed is wolf' guys, give the fox and coyote a little love here! I am not sure about dingos. Are dingos natural, or are they a return-to-nature phenom?
On top of all his other fail, he wrote 'bred' twice in a row. And yeah, we keep making up new breeds. XD To whoever mentioned poodles, they were originally bred for a useful purpose, they're bird-dogs for marshes, they swim. They've got somewhat webbed toes. Not initially one of the decorative breeds. That said, I doubt they could hunt adequately for themselves except a few particularly well-endowed specimens, so the point stands.
@ Amadaun
Hey, 'only natural breed is wolf' guys, give the fox and coyote a little love here!
The fox and the coyote are more like cousins to dogs and wolves and together are all part of the biological family called Canids or Canidae . The Canids are farther divided into two main tribes; the Canini tribe, of which dogs, dingos and wolves are a part, and the Vulpini tribe, made up of the foxes, jackals and the coyotes. So the only natural dog breed is essentially the wolf (canis lupus lupus ), and both the dog (canis lupus familiaris )and the dingo (canis lupus familiaris dingo ) are considered selectively evolved sub-species of wolves.
Does anyone know age of some of our oldest modern breeds?
Dogs were being domesticated 17000 years ago (which already blows Andy's little theory out of the water) However, I wonder which of the modern breeds are the oldest, and how old they are. My guess would go will Huskys as being the oldest, and Chow Chows are at least 4000 years old.
Re #1215640
Foxes are vulpines, which are cousins to canines (dogs and wolves) But jackals and coyotes are definitely canines. Coyotes, wolves, and dogs frequently hybridize, producing viable, fertile offspring. Vulpines and Canines cannot do that.
Article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae
It's easy to make up a dog race you know. Very easy, very quick.
We humans make dog species through selecting the best mom and the best dad with the traits and that hopefully gives babies that look just like 'em.
...And it's something that is done rather... Irresponsibly sometimes. Like a lot. Races creep me out.
In order for this example to work, you're invoking evolution. Good going.
BTW, pure bred dogs exist because of fucking inbreeding. Dumbass.
Conservadpedia article
Nuff said
Ok I think I finally figured out what this guy's argument is.
1) God invented all the breeds of dog, not humans. They were all created on the same day.
Wow that article is a gold mine of stupidity!
"The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying (CNN's Anderson Cooper began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);[22] many celebrities (such as American Idol winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)[22] and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)[23] increasingly experience premature graying or balding."
American idol winner goes grey at 20, must mean the Universe is only 6000 years old!
You can't make this shit up!
So we can add dog breeding to the list of things Conservapedia knows nothing about.
This is my surprised face:
:-|
dogs naturally crossbreed
... and this is where these people we call "dog-breeders" come in.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
