Cute Baby Animal Appreciation Thread

[natty dread]

I'm pretty sure Nattys default position is dick.

Nope, it's on top.

[Army of GOD]

yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive

Fallacious statement

How so?

A cat with no eyeballs would survive if it was living in an environment where having eyes wasn't strictly necessary for survival.

For example, there are some lizards and fish that live in places with almost no light at all, and they have evolved to have no eyes.

LOL! Now you're just being a dick Well played though I guess.

However if we are being anal, cats in their current stage of evolution would result in the little guy not surviving. Not only do cats rely heavily on their eyes, it wouldn't even get to that point because the mother of the litter would abandon it as soon as it realised it couldn't keep up (in the wild of course - some "modern" mother cats are more tolerant).

[john9blue]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

[Army of GOD]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

[natty dread]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

The Theory of Evolution does not make a distinction between "wild" and "domesticated". Both are just different environments for organisms to adapt to. Humans aren't somehow "apart" from nature, we're a part of it.

So an eyeless kitten may be well enough adapted to survive in domesticated conditions.

We have blind humans too, and they survive just fine in their environment.

[Symmetry]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

The Theory of Evolution does not make a distinction between "wild" and "domesticated". Both are just different environments for organisms to adapt to. Humans aren't somehow "apart" from nature, we're a part of it.

So an eyeless kitten may be well enough adapted to survive in domesticated conditions.

We have blind humans too, and they survive just fine in their environment.

The article I posted earlier does suggest that their is evidence for domesticity gene which can be bred into animals, or mammals at least. I think your other points are good though.

[Gillipig]

[Symmetry]

Yay!

[MeDeFe]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

The Theory of Evolution does not make a distinction between "wild" and "domesticated". Both are just different environments for organisms to adapt to. Humans aren't somehow "apart" from nature, we're a part of it.

So an eyeless kitten may be well enough adapted to survive in domesticated conditions.

We have blind humans too, and they survive just fine in their environment.

The article I posted earlier does suggest that their is evidence for domesticity gene which can be bred into animals, or mammals at least. I think your other points are good though.

Isn't it rather the case that some hereditary traits like relatively low aggression and the like will be specifically selected for during the process of domestication?

[Symmetry]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

The Theory of Evolution does not make a distinction between "wild" and "domesticated". Both are just different environments for organisms to adapt to. Humans aren't somehow "apart" from nature, we're a part of it.

So an eyeless kitten may be well enough adapted to survive in domesticated conditions.

We have blind humans too, and they survive just fine in their environment.

The article I posted earlier does suggest that their is evidence for domesticity gene which can be bred into animals, or mammals at least. I think your other points are good though.

Isn't it rather the case that some hereditary traits like relatively low aggression and the like will be specifically selected for during the process of domestication?

The article suggests that a gene is actually in play- and that it has an effect beyond behaviour- the appearance of the animal changes. It's an interesting read.

Link

Miraculously, Belyaev had compressed thousands of years of domestication into a few years. But he wasn't just looking to prove he could create friendly foxes. He had a hunch that he could use them to unlock domestication's molecular mysteries. Domesticated animals are known to share a common set of characteristics, a fact documented by Darwin in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. They tend to be smaller, with floppier ears and curlier tails than their untamed progenitors. Such traits tend to make animals appear appealingly juvenile to humans. Their coats are sometimes spotted—piebald, in scientific terminology—while their wild ancestors' coats are solid. These and other traits, sometimes referred to as the domestication phenotype, exist in varying degrees across a remarkably wide range of species, from dogs, pigs, and cows to some nonmammalians like chickens, and even a few fish.

[natty dread]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

The Theory of Evolution does not make a distinction between "wild" and "domesticated". Both are just different environments for organisms to adapt to. Humans aren't somehow "apart" from nature, we're a part of it.

So an eyeless kitten may be well enough adapted to survive in domesticated conditions.

We have blind humans too, and they survive just fine in their environment.

The article I posted earlier does suggest that their is evidence for domesticity gene which can be bred into animals, or mammals at least. I think your other points are good though.

That just proves my point though. Domestication is just a different environment, which causes a certain gene to be expressed in the organism... it's not like domestication suddenly shuts down evolution.

[Army of GOD]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

The Theory of Evolution does not make a distinction between "wild" and "domesticated". Both are just different environments for organisms to adapt to. Humans aren't somehow "apart" from nature, we're a part of it.

So an eyeless kitten may be well enough adapted to survive in domesticated conditions.

We have blind humans too, and they survive just fine in their environment.

Blind humans only survive because of the intelligence of the human race. A million years ago, a blind human would be fucked. A blind kitten would probably be more fucked. Both have a great chance of surviving to their maximum age that their bodies permit because of the assistance humans can lead both of them. We feed them, keep them company, shelter them, etc. A blind kitten in the wild would only be helped by its mother until a certain point until the mother sees that the kitten (well, it'd be a cat at this point) is too old to be cared for. It would only be a matter of time until some sort of predator comes and kills it or something else.

[natty dread]

Have you ever heard of Daredevil?

[MeDeFe]

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

The Theory of Evolution does not make a distinction between "wild" and "domesticated". Both are just different environments for organisms to adapt to. Humans aren't somehow "apart" from nature, we're a part of it.

So an eyeless kitten may be well enough adapted to survive in domesticated conditions.

We have blind humans too, and they survive just fine in their environment.

The article I posted earlier does suggest that their is evidence for domesticity gene which can be bred into animals, or mammals at least. I think your other points are good though.

Isn't it rather the case that some hereditary traits like relatively low aggression and the like will be specifically selected for during the process of domestication?

The article suggests that a gene is actually in play- and that it has an effect beyond behaviour- the appearance of the animal changes. It's an interesting read.

Link

Miraculously, Belyaev had compressed thousands of years of domestication into a few years. But he wasn't just looking to prove he could create friendly foxes. He had a hunch that he could use them to unlock domestication's molecular mysteries. Domesticated animals are known to share a common set of characteristics, a fact documented by Darwin in The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. They tend to be smaller, with floppier ears and curlier tails than their untamed progenitors. Such traits tend to make animals appear appealingly juvenile to humans. Their coats are sometimes spotted—piebald, in scientific terminology—while their wild ancestors' coats are solid. These and other traits, sometimes referred to as the domestication phenotype, exist in varying degrees across a remarkably wide range of species, from dogs, pigs, and cows to some nonmammalians like chickens, and even a few fish.

But you still don't "breed a gene into" the animals. Animals which show the greatest expression of the gene will tend to be allowed to produce offspring, the others won't.

[Gillipig]

[john9blue]

Have you ever heard of Daredevil?

...yeah, i think we're done talking here.

your grasp of the larger sociological implications of darwinism is impressive, but when you make obviously facetious posts like this, it becomes clear that you aren't looking for a meaningful discussion

[zimmah]

A giant mouse devouring a bear... Now that is awesome.

i'm quite sure it's a rat.

[natty dread]

Have you ever heard of Daredevil?

...yeah, i think we're done talking here.

your grasp of the larger sociological implications of darwinism is impressive, but when you make obviously facetious posts like this, it becomes clear that you aren't looking for a meaningful discussion

I'm sorry, have we been talking? I didn't notice. I thought you were just being your usual self, throwing off-hand remarks from the sidelines without really participating in the discussion.

Anyway, this isn't the thread for that. If you really want to discuss sociology and the theory of evolution, start a new thread for it. I'm done derailing this one.

To get back on topic, here's a baby hamster or something

[zimmah]

yes yes darwinism wouldnt let this little tacker survive

Fallacious statement

How so?

A cat with no eyeballs would survive if it was living in an environment where having eyes wasn't strictly necessary for survival.

For example, there are some lizards and fish that live in places with almost no light at all, and they have evolved to have no eyes.

LOL! Now you're just being a dick Well played though I guess.

However if we are being anal, cats in their current stage of evolution would result in the little guy not surviving. Not only do cats rely heavily on their eyes, it wouldn't even get to that point because the mother of the litter would abandon it as soon as it realised it couldn't keep up (in the wild of course - some "modern" mother cats are more tolerant).

i'm sure cats would be able to survive at least in urban environment (and i mean just living on the streets, not having any 'home') purely by relying on smell, sound and their whiskers to catch prey and scavenge food. cats are manly scavengers, preying on weak or careless animals and scavenging food that is left behind, either died of natural cause (or unnatural cause) or left behind by other animals or human. there's plenty of food to find for even blind cats. and i wouldn't be surprised either if a blind cat would survive in a forest or something. eyesight isn't even a cats primary sense. unlike humans, most animals don't rely on their eyes for primary senses, humans are highly sigh-oriented, most animals are sound or smell-oriented, or use completely different senses that are not nearly as developed for us humans.

[Lootifer]

the principles behind darwinism wouldn't favor that cat's survival, given its environment. it's that simple.

True and obviously the only reason it's surviving in its domesticated environment is because it has humans to look out for it. If this cat was born and stayed in the wild, it wouldn't stand much of a chance to live past a certain point on the young side.

The Theory of Evolution does not make a distinction between "wild" and "domesticated". Both are just different environments for organisms to adapt to. Humans aren't somehow "apart" from nature, we're a part of it.

So an eyeless kitten may be well enough adapted to survive in domesticated conditions.

We have blind humans too, and they survive just fine in their environment.

The article I posted earlier does suggest that their is evidence for domesticity gene which can be bred into animals, or mammals at least. I think your other points are good though.

That just proves my point though. Domestication is just a different environment, which causes a certain gene to be expressed in the organism... it's not like domestication suddenly shuts down evolution.

No you're right. But the fundamentals of darwinism (i.e. the strongest survive) has not really been shown to be true in the modern or domestic society.

The cat may or may not survive, but that irrelevant. Darwinism dictates that in a competitive environment the strongest will survive; that's all I was referring too. I havent read enough of Darwins fundamental stuff to know if he covers off the modern era/domesticisation.

[natty dread]

No you're right. But the fundamentals of darwinism (i.e. the strongest survive) has not really been shown to be true in the modern or domestic society.

"Strongest" is an arbitrary definition. It's more like "the one that's best adapted in it's immediate environment survives".

In the case of a domesticated setting, "strongest" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as in the wild. But that's all I'm going to say about this in this thread, if you want to continue the discussion start a new thread.

[Aradhus]

Sicko shoots a cat

[Gillipig]

Looks a bit like me . Well the eye and hair colour at least

[nietzsche]

cat's don't like clothes, that's animal cruelty.

[Gillipig]

cat's don't like clothes, that's animal abuse.

Neither do I but I still have to wear them......sometimes.