Conquer Club

Aradhus wrote:I'm pretty sure Nattys default position is dick.

Lootifer wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

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

Army of GOD wrote:

john9blue wrote: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 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

john9blue wrote: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.

Gillipig wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

john9blue wrote: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.

MeDeFe wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

john9blue wrote: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?

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.

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

john9blue wrote: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.

natty_dread wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

john9blue wrote: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 wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Army of GOD wrote: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 wrote:Have you ever heard of Daredevil?

MeDeFe wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

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

john9blue wrote:

natty_dread wrote: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

Lootifer wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Lootifer wrote: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).

natty_dread wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

john9blue wrote: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.

Lootifer wrote: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.

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