Just me

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
bigad
Student
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Leeds, UK

Just me

Post #1

Post by bigad »

Hi Im Adam, i used to be a catholic but when i was old enough to question religion i didnt like the answers as they did not hold up to scrutiny. I believe in a higher being but believe religion was designed to control the masses and has no place in a modern society. I dont buy the big bang theory but i do believe in evolution, as you cannot argue with facts, we see natural selection around us every day, dogs were created by man through simple natural selection!

User avatar
bigad
Student
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Leeds, UK

Post #11

Post by bigad »

Miles wrote:
bigad wrote:Dogs were created by man through simple natural selection!

They are an entirely new species.
Dogs are not the result of natural selection, but are a domesticated version of the wolf---the gray wolf if I remember correctly--- and they are not considered a different species from the wolf, but a wolf subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris. The gray wolf being C. l. lupus.

Breeds do not merit taxonomic designations.
When i say dogs were created by natural selection what i mean is that man chose dogs with similar traits which they required for specific tasks i.e catching rabbits, herding sheep, and bred them together in order to make those traits more profound. I am new to this site, and am starting to see that i will have to be very precise in my statements in the future.

And yes they are a sub species but one that did not exist until man's interference, but i understand your slightly pedantic point.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Post #12

Post by Miles »

bigad wrote:
Miles wrote:
bigad wrote:Dogs were created by man through simple natural selection!

They are an entirely new species.
Dogs are not the result of natural selection, but are a domesticated version of the wolf---the gray wolf if I remember correctly--- and they are not considered a different species from the wolf, but a wolf subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris. The gray wolf being C. l. lupus.

Breeds do not merit taxonomic designations.
When i say dogs were created by natural selection what i mean is that man chose dogs with similar traits which they required for specific tasks i.e catching rabbits, herding sheep, and bred them together in order to make those traits more profound. I am new to this site, and am starting to see that i will have to be very precise in my statements in the future.

And yes they are a sub species but one that did not exist until man's interference, but i understand your slightly pedantic point.
A belated welcome, and yes, people here are taken to task for misspeaking. This is done for several reasons. To set them straight; to eliminate the spread of misinformation; and to curtail potential misunderstandings, which too often lead to needless side discussions. So while my point about species may seem slightly pedantic, it really is not.
It has to be remembered that the terms of science have specific meanings, and when talking about science issues here these meanings are pretty well recognized and adhered to. So, when you say "They are an entirely new species," "species" is taken in its strict taxonomic sense: a specific rank. And when you use the term "natural selection" it's taken in its biological sense: A naturally occurring survival process that brings about change in a population of organisms. It does not embrace changes brought about by human tinkering.

User avatar
bigad
Student
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:48 am
Location: Leeds, UK

Post #13

Post by bigad »

[quote]A belated welcome, and yes, people here are taken to task for misspeaking. This is done for several reasons. To set them straight; to eliminate the spread of misinformation; and to curtail potential misunderstandings, which too often lead to needless side discussions. So while my point about species may seem slightly pedantic, it really is not.
It has to be remembered that the terms of science have specific meanings, and when talking about science issues here these meanings are pretty well recognized and adhered to. So, when you say "They are an entirely new species," "species" is taken in its strict taxonomic sense: a specific rank. And when you use the term "natural selection" it's taken in its biological sense: A naturally occurring survival process that brings about change in a population of organisms. It does not embrace changes brought about by human tinkering.[quote/]

Thank you for the welcome, and the heads up, i will ensure in future i use the correct terminology. As i said im new to this but will get to grips with it. I was just trying make a point to the theist that it doesnt take a god to create a species (or sub species) as men are mere mortals and capable of such deeds.

User avatar
justifyothers
Site Supporter
Posts: 1764
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Virginia, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Just me

Post #14

Post by justifyothers »

bigad wrote:Hi Im Adam, i used to be a catholic but when i was old enough to question religion i didnt like the answers as they did not hold up to scrutiny. I believe in a higher being but believe religion was designed to control the masses and has no place in a modern society. I dont buy the big bang theory but i do believe in evolution, as you cannot argue with facts, we see natural selection around us every day, dogs were created by man through simple natural selection!
Hi Adam.
Welcome & look forward to hearing from you.

Post Reply