Sure, I can go along with not citing the bible. The bible is new, this is from much older Genesis stories, long before any parts of the bible came to be, pre-history and pre-deity stuff. As far as “built for", every animal before domestication was built for its environment. DNA is really helping us view the past and change some of the thinking. Like it was believed in Europe that hunters evolved into farmers. That turns out not to be true. The farmers migrated to Europe and lived alongside the hunters. One would think that the hunters would have turned to farming. Why didn’t they?
Another changing belief is that white skin people evolved in Norther Europe. DNA also proves that to be false. White skin people of today only came to be about 12,000 years ago from an area close to India. It really fits the domestication of mankind stories.
I wouldn’t get to hung up on this domestication thinking, it is not on the radar for research now. But the facts seem to be opening a door in this direction. Domestication was more understood in the 1500-1800 than it is today. Religion seems to have eradicated domestication. Darwin claimed that when animals are domesticated one of the results is lighter skin.
Sure, I can go along with not citing the bible. The bible is new, this is from much older Genesis stories, long before any parts of the bible came to be, pre-history and pre-deity stuff. As far as “built for", every animal before domestication was built for its environment. DNA is really helping us view the past and change some of the thinking. Like it was believed in Europe that hunters evolved into farmers. That turns out not to be true. The farmers migrated to Europe and lived alongside the hunters. One would think that the hunters would have turned to farming. Why didn’t they? Another changing belief is that white skin people evolved in Norther Europe. DNA also proves that to be false. White skin people of today only came to be about 12,000 years ago from an area close to India. It really fits the domestication of mankind stories. I wouldn’t get to hung up on this domestication thinking, it is not on the radar for research now. But the facts seem to be opening a door in this direction. Domestication was more understood in the 1500-1800 than it is today. Religion seems to have eradicated domestication. Darwin claimed that when animals are domesticated one of the results is lighter skin.The hunter gatherers turned to farming when they couldn't support their growing population with just hunting. Farming fed greater numbers and with greater numbers they subdued any hunters that arrived on their lands. It wasn't domestication. As for dogs, they approached us first and cats later on moved in when we built cities which resulted in an increase in rats. Animals aren't built for their environment. They adapt. Built implies a designer of which there is none. It's also guilty of appeal to nature fallacy. Evolution isn't some careful precision process, is more like throwing darts blindfold. But then again I would expect this nonsense from you, just like in the previous threads you have commented on.
Some animals were domesticated for utilitarian purposes from the very beginning. Here belongs, first of all, the rabbit, whose real domestication was carried out from the 6th to the 10th century ce by French monks. The monks considered newborn rabbits “fish" and ate them when the church calendar indicated abstinence from meat.God said that was ok, but for monks only. Everybody else had to eat fish or be damned to hell.
Funny how that works.Some animals were domesticated for utilitarian purposes from the very beginning. Here belongs, first of all, the rabbit, whose real domestication was carried out from the 6th to the 10th century ce by French monks. The monks considered newborn rabbits “fish" and ate them when the church calendar indicated abstinence from meat.God said that was ok, but for monks only. Everybody else had to eat fish or be damned to hell.
Funny how that works. Yes, and funny how religion works.Some animals were domesticated for utilitarian purposes from the very beginning. Here belongs, first of all, the rabbit, whose real domestication was carried out from the 6th to the 10th century ce by French monks. The monks considered newborn rabbits “fish" and ate them when the church calendar indicated abstinence from meat.God said that was ok, but for monks only. Everybody else had to eat fish or be damned to hell.
Sure, I can go along with not citing the bible. The bible is new, this is from much older Genesis stories, long before any parts of the bible came to be, pre-history and pre-deity stuff. As far as “built for", every animal before domestication was built for its environment. DNA is really helping us view the past and change some of the thinking. Like it was believed in Europe that hunters evolved into farmers. That turns out not to be true. The farmers migrated to Europe and lived alongside the hunters. One would think that the hunters would have turned to farming. Why didn’t they? Another changing belief is that white skin people evolved in Norther Europe. DNA also proves that to be false. White skin people of today only came to be about 12,000 years ago from an area close to India. It really fits the domestication of mankind stories. I wouldn’t get to hung up on this domestication thinking, it is not on the radar for research now. But the facts seem to be opening a door in this direction. Domestication was more understood in the 1500-1800 than it is today. Religion seems to have eradicated domestication. Darwin claimed that when animals are domesticated one of the results is lighter skin.The hunter gatherers turned to farming when they couldn't support their growing population with just hunting. Farming fed greater numbers and with greater numbers they subdued any hunters that arrived on their lands. It wasn't domestication. As for dogs, they approached us first and cats later on moved in when we built cities which resulted in an increase in rats. Animals aren't built for their environment. They adapt. Built implies a designer of which there is none. It's also guilty of appeal to nature fallacy. Evolution isn't some careful precision process, is more like throwing darts blindfold. But then again I would expect this nonsense from you, just like in the previous threads you have commented on. Titanomachina takes down Yohe. It's going to be a good day.
Titanomachina takes down Yohe. It's going to be a good day.Way to go Tee Em. High five! :coolsmile:
Animals aren't built for their environment. They adapt. Built implies a designer of which there is none. It's also guilty of appeal to nature fallacy. Evolution isn't some careful precision process, is more like throwing darts blindfold. But then again I would expect this nonsense from you, just like in the previous threads you have commented on.Titanomachina takes down Yohe. It's going to be a good day. Oh, yes it is a good day. We just got informed that animals adapt to their environment. That’s great news because there are a bunch of ill-advised poster on this site claiming that there is going to be an extinction of species do to Climate Change. They can shut up now because Titanomachina straighten out that nonsense, the animals will just adapt.
Titanomachina takes down Yohe. It's going to be a good day.Way to go Tee Em. High five! :coolsmile: You need to learn from Tee. He did in the first try what you have been failing at for years. What is Tee’s secret? You both disregard science. I think you take it personally whereas Tee could give a shit. Just a guess.
Animals aren't built for their environment. They adapt. Built implies a designer of which there is none. It's also guilty of appeal to nature fallacy. Evolution isn't some careful precision process, is more like throwing darts blindfold. But then again I would expect this nonsense from you, just like in the previous threads you have commented on.Titanomachina takes down Yohe. It's going to be a good day. Oh, yes it is a good day. We just got informed that animals adapt to their environment. That’s great news because there are a bunch of ill-advised poster on this site claiming that there is going to be an extinction of species do to Climate Change. They can shut up now because Titanomachina straighten out that nonsense, the animals will just adapt. They will adapt or migrate or die. It's called the Sixth Great Extinction;
THE EXTINCTION CRISIS It’s frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background" rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1]. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century [2].http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
And corroborated by;
THE MOST CATASTROPHIC
The Sixth, however, may be the most catastrophic in history. It is estimated that half of all plants, animals and birds on the planet will die off before 2100. This extinction is the first to occur during the existence of homo sapiens, and it simultaneously began 100,000 years ago, a date that corresponds with the beginnings of our dispersion from Africa. In fact, this extinction is almost exclusively human driven.
Seems Mother Nature doesn’t like artificial human meddling in her affairs.
And corroborated by;I guess that answers my question about how some say we should go back to hunter gatherers, it can't happen. Although ultimately this planet is doomed when the sun expands anyway.THE MOST CATASTROPHIC The Sixth, however, may be the most catastrophic in history. It is estimated that half of all plants, animals and birds on the planet will die off before 2100. This extinction is the first to occur during the existence of homo sapiens, and it simultaneously began 100,000 years ago, a date that corresponds with the beginnings of our dispersion from Africa. In fact, this extinction is almost exclusively human driven.http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/28/the-sixth-great-extinction-a-silent-extermination/ Seems Mother Nature doesn't like artificial human meddling in her affairs.
Oh, yes it is a good day. We just got informed that animals adapt to their environment. That’s great news because there are a bunch of ill-advised poster on this site claiming that there is going to be an extinction of species do to Climate Change. They can shut up now because Titanomachina straighten out that nonsense, the animals will just adapt.That's not how evolution works at all. It doesn't guarantee that every species will adapt to every change. Tita didn't say that. It only says that every living thing changes slightly with every generation. If they didn't, and the environment changed, the air, the water, the elements don't adapt, but just change their mix, then living things couldn't possibly survive, not for 4 billion years like they have.
Lausten, the change rate is understood for wild animals. It varies by species, but still takes thousands of years for a change to occur. The tree foul that the chicken came from for example takes 100K years for mutations. Yet in a fifty year program at the University of Pennsylvania on chicken mutations, they have had three mutations in the fifty years. Thus, one would have to think that it is possible that we don’t have the same timeline for domestication mutations as for evolution mutations. Probably because we messed with Mother Nature. Therefore, the domesticated animals should have a better chance of survival with Climate Change.
Oh, yes it is a good day. We just got informed that animals adapt to their environment. That’s great news because there are a bunch of ill-advised poster on this site claiming that there is going to be an extinction of species do to Climate Change. They can shut up now because Titanomachina straighten out that nonsense, the animals will just adapt.That's not how evolution works at all. It doesn't guarantee that every species will adapt to every change. Tita didn't say that. It only says that every living thing changes slightly with every generation. If they didn't, and the environment changed, the air, the water, the elements don't adapt, but just change their mix, then living things couldn't possibly survive, not for 4 billion years like they have.. Except maybe the insects, which have an great resistance to environmental changes, and other simple organisms such as extremophiles. As long as the earth lives, there will be life that inhabits it. Just not human life..
Lausten, the change rate is understood for wild animals. It varies by species, but still takes thousands of years for a change to occur. The tree foul that the chicken came from for example takes 100K years for mutations. Yet in a fifty year program at the University of Pennsylvania on chicken mutations, they have had three mutations in the fifty years. Thus, one would have to think that it is possible that we don’t have the same timeline for domestication mutations as for evolution mutations. Probably because we messed with Mother Nature. Therefore, the domesticated animals should have a better chance of survival with Climate Change.Admit it Mike, you are just really bad at extrapolating conclusions from data.
Lausten, the change rate is understood for wild animals. It varies by species, but still takes thousands of years for a change to occur. The tree foul that the chicken came from for example takes 100K years for mutations. Yet in a fifty year program at the University of Pennsylvania on chicken mutations, they have had three mutations in the fifty years. Thus, one would have to think that it is possible that we don’t have the same timeline for domestication mutations as for evolution mutations. Probably because we messed with Mother Nature. Therefore, the domesticated animals should have a better chance of survival with Climate Change.Why? Domestication brings relaxation of senses. A very bad thing when you must rely on pure survival skills. Mostly, physical conditioning in an ideal environment makes one more vulnerable, especially in complex organisms. Where simple adjustments of behavior are no longer required for sustenance, natural selections favors all who survive , and continue in controlled safe environment. If they live , they thrive. 4 milk cows are better than three. But not really, 3 good milk cows are better then 4 mediocre, but we have taken the function of natural selecti, by selecting them all. Tough we mate prime bulls with prime females and treasure them, nature has no such feeling. It creates a greater variety of offspring, and that the probabilistic part of evolution, it's in all directions.
Admit it Mike, you are just really bad at extrapolating conclusions from data.Lausten, I don't see it the way you do. For one, there are no scientific conclusions at this time of the domesticated mutations. Mainly because to test and study mutation rates in the field takes hundreds and maybe even thousands of years. No known studies of that type have yet been done. This study at the University of Pennsylvania is the only field study that I am aware of. A field study would have to place animals in different environments and different stress levels and see how the genes react. There are questions that I have that science has not gotten around to studying or finding answers to yet. For example, there are levels of domestication, what are they and what are the rules? A pig for example when left in the wild will over several generations revert back to how it was in a wild state. Where wheat and rice are fully domesticated and cannot revert by to it original wild grass. The point being is that I have no solid conclusion on domestication and I am open minded and would like to know more.
This domestication sidetrack is just another of Yohe’s red herrings. The point was we’re in the midst of a manmade mass extinction. Arguing about the rate of evolutionary change in domesticated animals returned to the wild is irrelevant to that point. The majority of species on Earth will die off if we don’t reverse our trend of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Don’t let Yohe sidetrack yet another interesting discussion.
Lausten, the change rate is understood for wild animals. It varies by species, but still takes thousands of years for a change to occur. The tree foul that the chicken came from for example takes 100K years for mutations. Yet in a fifty year program at the University of Pennsylvania on chicken mutations, they have had three mutations in the fifty years. Thus, one would have to think that it is possible that we don’t have the same timeline for domestication mutations as for evolution mutations. Probably because we messed with Mother Nature. Therefore, the domesticated animals should have a better chance of survival with Climate Change.Why? Domestication brings relaxation of senses. A very bad thing when you must rely on pure survival skills. Mostly, physical conditioning in an ideal environment makes one more vulnerable, especially in complex organisms. Where simple adjustments of behavior are no longer required for sustenance, natural selections favors all who survive , and continue in controlled safe environment. If they live , they thrive. 4 milk cows are better than three. But not really, 3 good milk cows are better then 4 mediocre, but we have taken the function of natural selecti, by selecting them all. Tough we mate prime bulls with prime females and treasure them, nature has no such feeling. It creates a greater variety of offspring, and that the probabilistic part of evolution, it's in all directions. Write4u, don’t get to wrapped up in the domestication and Climate Change because of what I stated. It was more for humor with Lausten. At this point in the studies of species, the scientist still need to define “what is a species". It is tough to classify organisms because delineating species requires sharp biological breaks that don’t always exist. Yet by looking we can see that they are a different species. Point being, can a species really become extinct if the species itself is made up of other species. For example, humans have the some of the DNA from the tardigrades. It is looking like all living organisms share a beginning ancestry. And it seems a little confusing when things like fungi (mushrooms) have now been revealed as being closer to animals like humans than to other plants like lettuce.