Grand National - Bet or Boycott?

No, you see you haven't really touched on morals. The biological imperative is called that because of it's very importance above all else. It doesn't take self-awareness into account.

I argue that it's certainly not morally wrong to do so. Every successive generation of any species increases and decreases the incidence of inherited genetic abnormalities.

Most of the animal kingdom breeds based on looks, or conformity to a primal physical ideal. Whether it's the reddest ass of a primate or the largest beak of a bird, or the biggest breasts of a woman, we're all taking part in the selective breeding towards the goal of a perfect physical ideal.

A lot of people confuse ethics with morals, and even though some people like to collectivise both terms, they are exclusive. You can be morally right and ethically wrong. Morals are about personal character and ethics are the social system in which you apply those morals.
 
Ok perhaps so but you aren't taking into account survival of the fitest.
In the wild animals breed with best and most able to provide for the young in most cases.
Many of the problems bred into dogs would mean they would not survive very long in the wild, for various reasons they would be unable to hunt and therefore raise their young.
That is something you have to take into account, anything should be fit for purpose
 
London Headshots said:
No, you see you haven't really touched on morals. The biological imperative is called that because of it's very importance above all else. It doesn't take self-awareness into account.

I argue that it's certainly not morally wrong to do so. Every successive generation of any species increases and decreases the incidence of inherited genetic abnormalities.

Most of the animal kingdom breeds based on looks, or conformity to a primal physical ideal. Whether it's the reddest ass of a primate or the largest beak of a bird, or the biggest breasts of a woman, we're all taking part in the selective breeding towards the goal of a perfect physical ideal.

A lot of people confuse ethics with morals, and even though some people like to collectivise both terms, they are exclusive. You can be morally right and ethically wrong. Morals are about personal character and ethics are the social system in which you apply those morals.
Click to expand...

That argument for artificial selection completely overlooks the role of natural selection in the wild, which is largely removed when the animal isn't dependent on itself for survival.

The relative benefits and risks of artificial selection are extensively documented. Without getting into specifics of dog breeds or any other examples, the general consensus is that the more heterozygous an animal's genetic structure is, the less likely they are to be born with genetic weaknesses and also the stronger their immune system is so they suffer less from illnesses.

I recall there was an Horizon documentary a few months ago that looked at this discussion specifically in the human gene pool. It was fascinating. If you can find it online I'd recommend it.
 
Gremlin said:
Ok perhaps so but you aren't taking into account survival of the fitest.
In the wild animals breed with best and most able to provide for the young in most cases.
Many of the problems bred into dogs would mean they would not survive very long in the wild, for various reasons they would be unable to hunt and therefore raise their young.
That is something you have to take into account, anything should be fit for purpose
Click to expand...

There isn't any such thing as survival of the fittest, that's a common misconception. It is a philosophical term coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. It's far more accurate to say survival-of-the-ones-that-just-happened-to-survive.

An adaptation that increases the chances of survival can come in any form. Why can't the dog's adaptation be one that increases the chances of a human being wanting to keep it as a pet, and therefore almost guaranteeing it a path to survival? They would be fit for purpose in this instance, and perfectly in line with Darwin's theory.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
There isn't any such thing as survival of the fittest, that's a common misconception. It is a philosophical term coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. It's far more accurate to say survival-of-the-ones-that-just-happened-to-survive.

An adaptation that increases the chances of survival can come in any form. Why can't the dog's adaptation be one that increases the chances of a human being wanting to keep it as a pet, and therefore almost guaranteeing it a path to survival? They would be fit for purpose in this instance, and perfectly in line with Darwin's theory.
Click to expand...

Garbage!....
 
London Headshots said:
There isn't any such thing as survival of the fittest, that's a common misconception. It is a philosophical term coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin. It's far more accurate to say survival-of-the-ones-that-just-happened-to-survive.

An adaptation that increases the chances of survival can come in any form. Why can't the dog's adaptation be one that increases the chances of a human being wanting to keep it as a pet, and therefore almost guaranteeing it a path to survival? They would be fit for purpose in this instance, and perfectly in line with Darwin's theory.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as survival of the fittest? What about natural selection? Do you believe in evolution or something else? Creation perhaps?

I'm going to hazard an early guess that it's not worth pursuing this discussion with you, but I'm also slightly intrigued by your views!
 
man, is this still going?

like an old retired racehorse its time to put this thing to sleep, chop it up and serve it as dog food.

(that was in fact a joke for the humourless amoung us. i think its quite sad, but necessary, that i have to say that these days..)
 
TriggerHappy said:
There's no such thing as survival of the fittest? What about natural selection? Do you believe in evolution or something else? Creation perhaps?

I'm going to hazard an early guess that it's not worth pursuing this discussion with you, but I'm also slightly intrigued by your views!
Click to expand...

Hmm, an interesting but total miscomprehension of my post. No, there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest", as I already said, it's a philosophical term coined by Herbert Spencer. The term has nothing to do with competition, it meant 'best adapted for a changing environment" (Hence a dog being cute enough to entice a human into taking it as a pet is a perfectly valid biological adaptation).

You probably haven't got a clue who Herbert Spencer even is. I'd wager a large purse that you haven't read one single page of The Origin Of Species, either, and that your actual working knowledge of evolution goes no further than whatever documentaries you've seen on TV at some point in your life (I'm more than happy to be proved wrong on this, and hope I am, as it's one of the finest reads in all of science). If you had read the book, as I have, cover to cover, you'd know that nowhere in Darwin's writings did that term ever come up during discourse until Spencer used it, whereby Darwin added it as mere synonym to Natural Selection in something like the 6th edition.

It is, however, no longer accepted as a very credible term by many leading biologists, some of whom as recently as this decade have posited that competition has absolutely no bearing on evolution whatsoever.

As for whether I believe in evolution, and your rather trite way of asking if I'm religious or not, I will say that I've read the old testament cover to cover. Along with the condescendingly titled New Testament, and the Qur'an. However, I would class myself as a staunch unbeliever, and will say that whether I believe in evolution or not is an irrelevant question. You may as well ask me if I 'believe' the earth to be round.

Now, given that my last paragraph will fly right over your head, like my previous post, I will state that I am an atheist who believes in evolution.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
Now, given that my last paragraph will fly right over your head, like my previous post, I will state that I am an atheist who believes in evolution.
Click to expand...

Cut the arrogance. You aren't the only one who's well read around here.
 
joescrivens said:
any good?
Click to expand...

No, it's literally the most mind-numbing, arduous hate-filled piece of totalitarian crap I've ever read in my life.

I consider the two weeks it took to read to be irretrievably lost, and the only thing I gained from it was being able to say I'd actually read it.
 
DemiLion said:
Cut the arrogance. You aren't the only one who's well read around here.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the arrogance of demanding something of someone you don't know, have never met, and never will meet? What source of power do you draw from to tell me what to do?

I wasn't being arrogant, I was being terse in response to a condescending post because I don't appreciate being called stupid by someone who is only doing so because they've failed to properly read a couple of short paragraphs.

I don't want to seem like an ***hole, but if you're capable of not getting irritated at something like that, then you're a better person than I am.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
. No, there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest",
Click to expand...

I wonder why male ,wild animals fight each other at breeding time then, could you explain that please?
 
joescrivens said:
the one with the biggest ......................... horns :lol:
Click to expand...

Sort of, but the biggest,strongest and fittest is a better explanation. But survival of the fittest is a myth, according to our resident guru.

I wonder how many pugs, poodles or s***sus would make it in the wild?
 
fracster said:
Yep, and which animal is usually the winner in said tussle?
Click to expand...

Well it sure as hell aint the prettiest looking one ;)

Of course its the fittest, strongest, biggest.
(all or any of the above.)
Hence the best genes get carried to the next generation.
 
fracster said:
Sort of, but the biggest,strongest and fittest is a better explanation. But survival of the fittest is a myth, according to our resident guru.

I wonder how many pugs, poodles or s***sus would make it in the wild?
Click to expand...

No, survival of the fittest is a misnomer, not a myth; according to modern science, anyway.
Here's something from Berkley, so you can belittle them as well:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#b5

You'll notice at the end of that segment, it recommends visiting "evolution 101".
 
Well, it's been fun educating you guys, but I have a shoot to go to.

If you have any questions about evolution, basic grammar, reading comprehension, or any of the other core failures grindingly established in this thread alone, please contact me via my commercial website.

I'm happy to help.

Adieu.
 
London Headshots said:
No, survival of the fittest is a misnomer, not a myth; according to modern science, anyway.............
Click to expand...

Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate
Click to expand...

Ok then, but they still need to be fitter, stronger, than their immediate rivals,
not the biggest and best in the world, just the small "colony" in which they exist.
To be able to stand the challenge of their so called peers.
 
Cobra said:
Ok then, but they still need to be fitter, stronger, than their immediate rivals,
not the biggest and best in the world, just the small "colony" in which they exist.
To be able to stand the challenge of their so called peers.
Click to expand...

No, not always. There are thousands of species where size, aggression and physical ability makes absolutely no difference, and in many cases, gives a distinct disadvantage.

Think about species of birds who mate because of the most colourful plumage. Plenty of avery examples to choose from.

Now, I could be wrong here, as this is from memory, but I also believe that male Black Widow spiders are more successful when they're small and weaker. Happy to be educated otherwise, as I'm not 100% sure that's a concrete example. I know they're more successful when they're smaller and weaker than the female, which already contradicts the entire premise of SOTF.

But really, you're agreeing with my originally contested post about it being "survival of the ones who just happened to survive".

I'm not saying their aren't examples of the physically dominant of the species being more successful in mating, I'm just saying that according to modern literature on the subject, it isn't one of the deciding factors in the theory itself. That is to say that you can't make accurate predictions using physical prowess.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
If you have any questions about evolution, basic grammar, reading comprehension, or any of the other core failures grindingly established in this thread alone, please contact me via my commercial website.

I'm happy to help.

Adieu.
Click to expand...

no need for that. and in the spirit of new found not putting up with any crap, have a day off
 
Cobra said:
Well it sure as hell aint the prettiest looking one ;)

Of course its the fittest, strongest, biggest.
(all or any of the above.)
Hence the best genes get carried to the next generation.
Click to expand...

So you think only the strongest have sex and reproduce then, no. Thats not true of the animal world or the human one either (thank god :lol: )

If your statement was correct then the gene pool of all species would be determined by only a few and that would be detrimental. Evolution by definition needs diversity to succeed, if the whole species relied on only the most dominant it would soon die out.

Steve
 
London Headshots said:
Well, it's been fun educating you guys, but I have a shoot to go to.

If you have any questions about evolution, basic grammar, reading comprehension, or any of the other core failures grindingly established in this thread alone, please contact me via my commercial website.

I'm happy to help.

Adieu.
Click to expand...

How pleasant.

London Headshots said:
No, not always. There are thousands of species where size, aggression and physical ability makes absolutely no difference, and in many cases, gives a distinct disadvantage.

Think about species of birds who mate because of the most colourful plumage. Plenty of avery examples to choose from.

Now, I could be wrong here, as this is from memory, but I also believe that male Black Widow spiders are more successful when they're small and weaker. Happy to be educated otherwise, as I'm not 100% sure that's a concrete example. I know they're more successful when they're smaller and weaker than the female, which already contradicts the entire premise of SOTF.

But really, you're agreeing with my originally contested post about it being "survival of the ones who just happened to survive".

I'm not saying their aren't examples of the physically dominant of the species being more successful in mating, I'm just saying that according to modern literature on the subject, it isn't one of the deciding factors in the theory itself. That is to say that you can't make accurate predictions using physical prowess.
Click to expand...

Interesting points. I have had a quick scan of the link you posted earlier, interesting read, can`t say I agree with some of it, but a raises some different points of view.
 
Wow you've suspended London Headshots surely its nothing to do with what has been posted here?

Steve

Edit

matty said:
no need for that. and in the spirit of new found not putting up with any crap, have a day off
Click to expand...

Sorry missed it :)
 
Last edited:
steve_v said:
Wow you've suspended London Headshots surely its nothing to do with what has been posted here?

Steve
Click to expand...

Their forum, they can do as they please Steve.
 
I can't really comment on the insect / arachnid population as my "area" is
Mammal reproduction and genetics. "Unfortunately" I studied this many years ago,
before genetics was a ""buzz word", and fully appreciate the fact
that there have been many advances and many other theories put forward since then.

London Headshots said:
Think about species of birds who mate because of the most colourful plumage. Plenty of avery examples to choose from.
.
Click to expand...

Agreed, to a point, however birds still need to be fit and healthy to be able to build the
nests, to look attractive to the females, ie being able to produce the melanins pheomelanins, and carotenoids
in sufficient quantity (though a good diet) for the "best" colour array (display) to attract a female.

This is in many ways still survival of the fittest. (healthiest)
 
steve_v said:
Wow you've suspended London Headshots surely its nothing to do with what has been posted here?

Steve
Click to expand...

Goddamnit and after I typed out a long reply too :( :D

steve_v said:
. Thats not true of the animal world or the human one either (thank god :lol: )
Click to expand...
:lol::lol::lol: (I'm with you there :D)

steve_v said:
If your statement was correct then the gene pool of all species would be determined by only a few and that would be detrimental. Evolution by definition needs diversity to succeed, if the whole species relied on only the most dominant it would soon die out.
Steve
Click to expand...

Agreed diversity is very important, but if you take the fact that
(and assuming we are talking about wild colony's)
Then generally yes there will be a noted decrease in viability with the insular colonies.

Take lions for example, this is where you get a wandering (marauding) male
looking to extend his harem, or indeed a youngster looking for his first.
He will challenge the male.
If that male has become ill weak etc. through injury or disease, he will lose the fight.
The interloper will then assume control of that colony, injecting a new gene pool into what could be an
"almost" depleted colony.
Survival of the fittest.
 
steve_v said:
Wow you've suspended London Headshots surely its nothing to do with what has been posted here?

Steve
Click to expand...

His last post,
If you have any questions about evolution, basic grammar, reading comprehension, or any of the other core failures grindingly established in this thread alone, please contact me via my commercial website.
Click to expand...
topped it off for me, a few little things over a few days but that topped it.

there is a growing need for people to argue on the forums at the moment, so im knocking a few heads together to try and regain a little bit of consideration for each other. Scrivens has the same, and im sure when I have a read i'll find a couple more. We as a forum are getting more and more rude to each other, and it needs to stop
 
matty said:
His last post, topped it off for me, a few little things over a few days but that topped it. .......

..........We as a forum are getting more and more rude to each other, and it needs to stop
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't argue with that, don't wont suspending :lol: but I feel there are ruder posts in this and other threads than the one you quote. Just my opinion of course ;)

Steve
 
steve_v said:
Well I wouldn't argue with that, don't wont suspending :lol: but I feel there are ruder posts in this and other threads than the one you quote. Just my opinion of course ;)

Steve
Click to expand...

report them please, i'll take a look
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top