HomeTEO, what do you think is happening when animals breed? In terms of DNA and genes.
Pensacola Discussion Forum
This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.
God and morality ... and the deep, deep south ..
+6
boards of FL
TEOTWAWKI
Markle
othershoe1030
knothead
Wordslinger
10 posters
Message [Page 4 of 9]
76 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 4:54 pm
boards of FL
_________________
I approve this message.
77 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 4:59 pm
TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL wrote:TEO, what do you think is happening when animals breed? In terms of DNA and genes.
For the most part dominant genes extract the best person from the union if you mean people. That is why inbreeding is so deleterious to a population because recessive and undesirable traits combine and appear in the offspring. BUT all that said they won't return to chimps no matter how hard you try.
78 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 5:05 pm
boards of FL
Oh my. I don't even know where to begin.
Good luck with that, TEO!
Good luck with that, TEO!
_________________
I approve this message.
79 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 5:06 pm
Guest
Guest
boards of FL wrote:TEO, what do you think is happening when animals breed? In terms of DNA and genes.
try breeding a bird with a horse, then come back to me and lets talk about DNA transfer LOL
80 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 5:15 pm
TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL wrote:Oh my. I don't even know where to begin.
Good luck with that, TEO!
Well evolutionists often get their terms confused such as adaptation or evolution which are totally different things and until you can agree on words and meaning, discussion is pretty much just evolutionists saying things like...."Oh my. I don't even know where to begin.", expressing false frustration in dealing with a lesser intellect when in all reality evolutionists just lack the words and knowledge to make a convincing argument. But they know their professor(minister) could kick creationist butt if he were here.
81 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 5:25 pm
boards of FL
TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well evolutionists often get their terms confused such as adaptation or evolution which are totally different things and until you can agree on words and meaning, discussion is pretty much just evolutionists saying things like...."Oh my. I don't even know where to begin.", expressing false frustration in dealing with a lesser intellect when in all reality evolutionists just lack the words and knowledge to make a convincing argument. But they know their professor(minister) could kick creationist butt if he were here.
Yep
_________________
I approve this message.
82 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 5:27 pm
TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL wrote:TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well evolutionists often get their terms confused such as adaptation or evolution which are totally different things and until you can agree on words and meaning, discussion is pretty much just evolutionists saying things like...."Oh my. I don't even know where to begin.", expressing false frustration in dealing with a lesser intellect when in all reality evolutionists just lack the words and knowledge to make a convincing argument. But they know their professor(minister) could kick creationist butt if he were here.
Yep
I don't know maybe wolves came from Chihuahuas..they would have taken up less space on the Ark..
84 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 5:34 pm
TEOTWAWKI
http://www.nwcreation.net/dogsandwolves.html
"Although the subject continues to be controversial, most authorities now agree that all dogs, from chihuahuas to dobermans are descended from wolves which were tamed in the Near East ten or twelve thousand years ago". Wolves, C. Savage, Sierra Club Book, ISBN 0-87156-689-3
"But man also made use of the wolf. The dogs owned by the American Indians must have descended from wolf stock". The Living Wilderness, Rutherford G. Montgomery, Torquil Books, 1964, Library of Congress No. 64-20648
"Canis sp. was parent to Canis lupus, the wolf; and the wolf was probably parent to the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, the first large creature who would live with men. "Today the wolf's closest relatives are the domestic dog, the dingo, the coyote and the jackal." Of Wolves and Men, Barry Holstun Lopez, Scribners, ISBN 0-684-15624-5
"The wolf is in fact a wild dog, a member of the scientific family Canidae, which includes domestic dogs as well as other dog-like wild animals such as foxes and jackals. "Scientists believe that wolves are the direct ancestors of today's domestic dogs. They think that early humans domesticated wild wolves to make them useful companions and work animals. Since that time, selective breeding has produced the many varieties of domestic dogs, some of which are very un-wolflike in appearance and habit". Wolf Pack, Sylvia Johnson, Alice Aamodt, First Avenue Editions, ISBN 0-8225-9526-5
"Canis familiaris was probably domesticated from the wolf 10-12,000 years ago. It found it's way into North America as far south as Idaho. Given thousands of years to selectively breed mutants that cropped up in their dog colonies, humans have manipulated an almost incredible diversity in this species. And there exist today more than 800 true breeding types worldwide". Looking at the Wolf, no author listed, Teton Science School, ISBN 0-911797-24-6
"Although wolves and dogs are both members of the Canid family, wolves rarely bark". The Kingdom of Wolves, Scott Barry.
"Few other species have had such a diversity of relationships with man as has the wolf. Evidently early humans tamed wolves and domesticated them, eventually selectively breeding them and finally developing the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) from them. "To date no differences in karyotypes have been found between the wolf and the domestic dog or the coyote (Hungerford & Snyder, 1966), or the red wolf (Nowak, 1970). According to Hsu and Benirschke (1967), both dog and coyote have 39 pairs of chromosomes, with the autosomes described as "acrocentrics or teleocentrics" and the sex chromosomes as "submetacentric" for the X and 'minute' for the Y in the coyote and "minute metacentric" for the Y in the dog. Iljin (1941) crossed a wolf with a black mongrel sheep dog and then made various types of crosses for four generations, totaling 101 individuals, all of which were fertile". The Mammalian Radiations, John F. Eisenberg, The University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-19537-6
"A wild wolf is genetically little more distant from the domesticated dog than a wild mustang is to a quarter horse. (That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, points to the genetic and ancestral affinities of wolf and dog.)...."In actuality, a poodle, like any purebred dog, already has innumerable wolf genes since they share a close common ancestry." Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit.
"....Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. "Recently I attended a canine genetics workshop at Texas A & M University in which it was further emphasized that there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. "....I would taxonomically identify all wolves, wolf hybrids and domestic dogs as the species Canis lupus. Technically, the domestic dog and wolf hybrids should be designated as the sub-species "domesticus". I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990
"Although the subject continues to be controversial, most authorities now agree that all dogs, from chihuahuas to dobermans are descended from wolves which were tamed in the Near East ten or twelve thousand years ago". Wolves, C. Savage, Sierra Club Book, ISBN 0-87156-689-3
"But man also made use of the wolf. The dogs owned by the American Indians must have descended from wolf stock". The Living Wilderness, Rutherford G. Montgomery, Torquil Books, 1964, Library of Congress No. 64-20648
"Canis sp. was parent to Canis lupus, the wolf; and the wolf was probably parent to the domestic dog, Canis familiaris, the first large creature who would live with men. "Today the wolf's closest relatives are the domestic dog, the dingo, the coyote and the jackal." Of Wolves and Men, Barry Holstun Lopez, Scribners, ISBN 0-684-15624-5
"The wolf is in fact a wild dog, a member of the scientific family Canidae, which includes domestic dogs as well as other dog-like wild animals such as foxes and jackals. "Scientists believe that wolves are the direct ancestors of today's domestic dogs. They think that early humans domesticated wild wolves to make them useful companions and work animals. Since that time, selective breeding has produced the many varieties of domestic dogs, some of which are very un-wolflike in appearance and habit". Wolf Pack, Sylvia Johnson, Alice Aamodt, First Avenue Editions, ISBN 0-8225-9526-5
"Canis familiaris was probably domesticated from the wolf 10-12,000 years ago. It found it's way into North America as far south as Idaho. Given thousands of years to selectively breed mutants that cropped up in their dog colonies, humans have manipulated an almost incredible diversity in this species. And there exist today more than 800 true breeding types worldwide". Looking at the Wolf, no author listed, Teton Science School, ISBN 0-911797-24-6
"Although wolves and dogs are both members of the Canid family, wolves rarely bark". The Kingdom of Wolves, Scott Barry.
"Few other species have had such a diversity of relationships with man as has the wolf. Evidently early humans tamed wolves and domesticated them, eventually selectively breeding them and finally developing the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) from them. "To date no differences in karyotypes have been found between the wolf and the domestic dog or the coyote (Hungerford & Snyder, 1966), or the red wolf (Nowak, 1970). According to Hsu and Benirschke (1967), both dog and coyote have 39 pairs of chromosomes, with the autosomes described as "acrocentrics or teleocentrics" and the sex chromosomes as "submetacentric" for the X and 'minute' for the Y in the coyote and "minute metacentric" for the Y in the dog. Iljin (1941) crossed a wolf with a black mongrel sheep dog and then made various types of crosses for four generations, totaling 101 individuals, all of which were fertile". The Mammalian Radiations, John F. Eisenberg, The University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-19537-6
"A wild wolf is genetically little more distant from the domesticated dog than a wild mustang is to a quarter horse. (That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, points to the genetic and ancestral affinities of wolf and dog.)...."In actuality, a poodle, like any purebred dog, already has innumerable wolf genes since they share a close common ancestry." Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit.
"....Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. "Recently I attended a canine genetics workshop at Texas A & M University in which it was further emphasized that there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. "....I would taxonomically identify all wolves, wolf hybrids and domestic dogs as the species Canis lupus. Technically, the domestic dog and wolf hybrids should be designated as the sub-species "domesticus". I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990
85 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/20/2014, 10:23 pm
Guest
Guest
boards of FL wrote:Why stop at apes? You realize we share ancestry with every biological organism on this planet - plants included -, right? You're showing your ignorance here. I wonder if you are even intimately familiar with the fairy tale written by the cave dwelling sheep herders that you feel explains the origins of the universe.
I'm going to ask you an honest question: Is Pluto a planet?
Ow.w..w... Tell us all about the origins of the universe and how it came to be. I'm all ears.
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-_PQZfRL_o
86 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 12:16 am
othershoe1030
So, the discussion has morphed from god and morality to evolution and creationism...always fascinating. To me this is an entirely irrelevant debate since science is talking about one thing, observable data and religion is talking about the perceived relationship between man and God. To me, if you had a Venn diagram there wouldn't be any overlap. These are two different topics that have been conflated to create yet another hot button wedge issue to keep otherwise somewhat reasonable people from talking in normal tones to each other.
I mean, if a priest talks about salvation or life after death does he consider the DNA of the apostles? I don't think so. If a scientist discovers a new species or searches for a cure to some disease does she consult her Bible or Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
Why do we consider it necessary or even of some value that religion over-lay observable data? Why did the Pope and Catholic Church fall out of their pews when it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system? They thought this might mean that we were not as important in the greater scheme of things if our real estate was off center. Oh really, please. Did it make any difference?
I mean, if a priest talks about salvation or life after death does he consider the DNA of the apostles? I don't think so. If a scientist discovers a new species or searches for a cure to some disease does she consult her Bible or Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
Why do we consider it necessary or even of some value that religion over-lay observable data? Why did the Pope and Catholic Church fall out of their pews when it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system? They thought this might mean that we were not as important in the greater scheme of things if our real estate was off center. Oh really, please. Did it make any difference?
87 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 12:28 am
Guest
Guest
othershoe1030 wrote:So, the discussion has morphed from god and morality to evolution and creationism...always fascinating. To me this is an entirely irrelevant debate since science is talking about one thing, observable data and religion is talking about the perceived relationship between man and God. To me, if you had a Venn diagram there wouldn't be any overlap. These are two different topics that have been conflated to create yet another hot button wedge issue to keep otherwise somewhat reasonable people from talking in normal tones to each other.
I mean, if a priest talks about salvation or life after death does he consider the DNA of the apostles? I don't think so. If a scientist discovers a new species or searches for a cure to some disease does she consult her Bible or Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
Why do we consider it necessary or even of some value that religion over-lay observable data? Why did the Pope and Catholic Church fall out of their pews when it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system? They thought this might mean that we were not as important in the greater scheme of things if our real estate was off center. Oh really, please. Did it make any difference?
Then what makes you think your moral imperatives make any more difference than anyone else's?
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FsrPEUt2Dg
88 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 12:36 am
TEOTWAWKI
othershoe1030 wrote:So, the discussion has morphed from god and morality to evolution and creationism...always fascinating. To me this is an entirely irrelevant debate since science is talking about one thing, observable data and religion is talking about the perceived relationship between man and God. To me, if you had a Venn diagram there wouldn't be any overlap. These are two different topics that have been conflated to create yet another hot button wedge issue to keep otherwise somewhat reasonable people from talking in normal tones to each other.
I mean, if a priest talks about salvation or life after death does he consider the DNA of the apostles? I don't think so. If a scientist discovers a new species or searches for a cure to some disease does she consult her Bible or Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
Why do we consider it necessary or even of some value that religion over-lay observable data? Why did the Pope and Catholic Church fall out of their pews when it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system? They thought this might mean that we were not as important in the greater scheme of things if our real estate was off center. Oh really, please. Did it make any difference?
89 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 12:38 am
othershoe1030
Damaged Eagle wrote:othershoe1030 wrote:So, the discussion has morphed from god and morality to evolution and creationism...always fascinating. To me this is an entirely irrelevant debate since science is talking about one thing, observable data and religion is talking about the perceived relationship between man and God. To me, if you had a Venn diagram there wouldn't be any overlap. These are two different topics that have been conflated to create yet another hot button wedge issue to keep otherwise somewhat reasonable people from talking in normal tones to each other.
I mean, if a priest talks about salvation or life after death does he consider the DNA of the apostles? I don't think so. If a scientist discovers a new species or searches for a cure to some disease does she consult her Bible or Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
Why do we consider it necessary or even of some value that religion over-lay observable data? Why did the Pope and Catholic Church fall out of their pews when it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system? They thought this might mean that we were not as important in the greater scheme of things if our real estate was off center. Oh really, please. Did it make any difference?
Then what makes you think your moral imperatives make any more difference than anyone else's?
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FsrPEUt2Dg
I don't recall ever saying such a thing.
90 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 12:40 am
othershoe1030
TEOTWAWKI wrote:othershoe1030 wrote:So, the discussion has morphed from god and morality to evolution and creationism...always fascinating. To me this is an entirely irrelevant debate since science is talking about one thing, observable data and religion is talking about the perceived relationship between man and God. To me, if you had a Venn diagram there wouldn't be any overlap. These are two different topics that have been conflated to create yet another hot button wedge issue to keep otherwise somewhat reasonable people from talking in normal tones to each other.
I mean, if a priest talks about salvation or life after death does he consider the DNA of the apostles? I don't think so. If a scientist discovers a new species or searches for a cure to some disease does she consult her Bible or Book of Mormon? I don't think so.
Why do we consider it necessary or even of some value that religion over-lay observable data? Why did the Pope and Catholic Church fall out of their pews when it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the solar system? They thought this might mean that we were not as important in the greater scheme of things if our real estate was off center. Oh really, please. Did it make any difference?
More frustrated than entertained.
91 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 12:45 am
TEOTWAWKI
Then leave the battle to the men cupcake...
92 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 12:49 am
Guest
Guest
othershoe1030 wrote:
I don't recall ever saying such a thing.
Then what point are you attempting to make... if any?
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnqbBgYZmI
93 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 12:54 am
TEOTWAWKI
Perhaps she needeth cat armor !
94 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 1:01 am
Guest
Guest
TEOTWAWKI wrote:Perhaps she needeth cat armor !
She may need to talk to someone about her issues...
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdsZT7WKjW8
95 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 1:29 am
Guest
Guest
othershoe1030 wrote:
More frustrated than entertained.
Now tell us what it is that's troubling you my dear and...
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipSZYgFVJvI
96 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 8:04 pm
Wordslinger
From all the entries to this forum thread, it's clear most of us agree that one doesn't need religion to be moral.
And, considering the crowd, that's a real breakthrough!!
Speaking for myself, I don't need god for anything. I don't even like the prick.
And, considering the crowd, that's a real breakthrough!!
Speaking for myself, I don't need god for anything. I don't even like the prick.
97 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 8:45 pm
othershoe1030
TEOTWAWKI wrote:Then leave the battle to the men cupcake...
Oh Paalleeezzze! I haven't seen such a blatantly sexist remark on here for quite some time, cupcake indeed! You have nothing better to say I guess? I am disappointed in your lack of intellectual stamina!
98 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 8:50 pm
othershoe1030
Damaged Eagle wrote:othershoe1030 wrote:
I don't recall ever saying such a thing.
Then what point are you attempting to make... if any?
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnqbBgYZmI
I am not attempting to make any point.
I AM making a point and that is that science and religion have nothing to do with one another however that doesn't keep dull witted people from trying to make them be about the same thing. They are not.
Religion is about the idea of human-kinds relationship to God and science is about observable data.
Also, it is my position that a person is totally capable of being moral without any religious foundation.
Is this clear enough for you big tough guys? (I was going to say BOYS but thought that was too sexist).
99 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 9:36 pm
Guest
Guest
othershoe1030 wrote:I am not attempting to make any point.
Then why all the fuss?
othershoe1030 wrote:I AM making a point and that is that science and religion have nothing to do with one another however that doesn't keep dull witted people from trying to make them be about the same thing. They are not.
Now how can you be so absolutely sure about that? Sounds like you have an arrogance problem to me.
othershoe1030 wrote:Religion is about the idea of human-kinds relationship to God and science is about observable data.
Now that would depend on what your definition of God is would it not?
So now you can see what really takes place at the quantum level and know definitively what's taking place?
That must mean you know what caused the universe to happen too... A response I'm still waiting for from Boards.
*****CHUCKLE*****
othershoe1030 wrote:Also, it is my position that a person is totally capable of being moral without any religious foundation.
And they are perfectly capable of being moral with God also.
othershoe1030 wrote:Is this clear enough for you big tough guys? (I was going to say BOYS but thought that was too sexist).
So you like it rough eh darlin'?
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_4ULKpkLNc
100 Re: God and morality ... and the deep, deep south .. 3/21/2014, 9:57 pm
Sal
othershoe1030 wrote:Damaged Eagle wrote:othershoe1030 wrote:
I don't recall ever saying such a thing.
Then what point are you attempting to make... if any?
*****CHUCKLE*****
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUnqbBgYZmI
I am not attempting to make any point.
I AM making a point and that is that science and religion have nothing to do with one another however that doesn't keep dull witted people from trying to make them be about the same thing. They are not.
Religion is about the idea of human-kinds relationship to God and science is about observable data.
Also, it is my position that a person is totally capable of being moral without any religious foundation.
Is this clear enough for you big tough guys? (I was going to say BOYS but thought that was too sexist).
Good stuff.
Message [Page 4 of 9]
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum