Honey badger

So if there is not enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the grey wolf is or isnt the possesor of the gameness trait by your own admission, how is it that you have come to the conclusion that it isnt in the grey wolf or that humans are not responsible for creatingthe gameness trait? I will limit myself to discussing only the grey wolf "conjecture" with you even though I did not leap to that conclusion from any generalized evidence, it is a generally accepted scientific theory, something very different to conjecture, so you might wanna take that up with the scientific community specialized in the most studied wild animal in the world, LOL.

So again the question I posed . How did u come to the conclusion that the grey wolf is not the possesor of the gamenes trait? Is it simply based on your observation of grey wolves? I fail to see how your non-systematic observations of grey wolf behavior have lead you to the scientific certainty that grey wolf are not the possesors of the gene. It is like saying that two certain bulldogs that you have observed to be curs will not produce a gamedog. It is also like saying that because you observed a shinny ore charectieristic in pyrite it contains the chemical element Au...LOL

The secret is that the gene, if it did come from grey wolves, is hidden or not allowed to express itself in grey wolves due to the dominance of other more crucial genes necessary for wolves to survive in a social atmosphere in the wild so that they may thrive. And even if the gene came from any contributor other than grey wolf the constraints of surviving in the wild necessitate only a mild expression of the gameness trait in order for kamikaze, so to speak, wolf species to not disrupt the natural cycles of life to.

 

I must admit that your persistant. I have come to no conclusion's even though you continue to put those words in my mouth and expressed that in a past post.

"it is a generally accepted scientific theory"
gen·er·al·ly

/ˈdʒɛn ər ə li/ Show Spelled [jen-er-uh-lee] Show IPA
adverb 1. usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon.

2. with respect to the larger part; for the most part: a generally accurate interpretation of the facts.

3. without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking.

the·o·ry

/ˈθi ə ri, ˈθɪər i/ Show Spelled [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA noun, plural the·o·ries. 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

So now I will pose you the question that has no reasonable answer supported by any scientific fact so that you can explain it to us all. Where did gameness come from?

NGK

 

Thanks for the compliment. I am persistent when I see conjecture being passed as knowledge, and when I notice logical fallacy is used to support a claim.

I will take it that you have conceded my point by default using the following logic.

You have just posed a question for me that has no reasonable answer supported by any scientific fact and that question is: where did gameness come from? I cannot answer that for the obvious reason that anything I claim is conjecture, but before you cry victory let me remind you how our little exchange began in the first place. It began with you claiming what you yourself have now admitted is not a reasonable claim supported by any scientific fact, mere conjecture....LOL. Again, here is what you claimed, so that you don't charge that I am putting words in your mouth. Again, your claim is conjecture no ands, ifs, or buts about it.

"Let's start with the APBT, any trait that is found in any animal on earth had to be there to begin with for it to be present now. Man has surely increased the amount of game animals with selective breeding but man in no way "Created Gameness" in them."

My question that it being common knowledge domesticated dogs were derived from grey wolves if you believed that they were the possesors of the gameness trait, to which you claimed that because of you observations you had come to the conclusion that they were curs, and it followed from this that they are not the possesors of the gameness trait and finally I have exposed that your claim is based on a logical fallacy based on your mere observation of something that cannot be verified by the naked eye.


So your statement is conjecture based not even on incomplete data but on the logical fallacy that because you observed a certain behavior in a wild animal that it does not posses a trait that can only be verified though a procedure proper to genetic engineering.

I cannot stress the term conjecture enough, because I was willing to concede that your claim was a theory( the first definition becuse that is the one that most parrallels the type of theory we are discussing, one based on science) but upon further examination the only possibility left was that there was nothing scientific or logical about your claim.

I appreciate your persistence as well but, you see, logic will always triumphs in a rational world.

 

"Let's start with the APBT, any trait that is found in any animal on earth had to be there to begin with for it to be present now. Man has surely increased the amount of game animals with selective breeding but man in no way "Created Gameness" in them."

So your entire argument is based on this statement and my observation of modern day wolves that are in fact curs?

I stand by the statement, and refute the conclusion based on incomplete data that has led people to believe that this "generally accepted scientific theory" is actually truth. Man did not create gameness. Man has no idea where the trait came from. Man can increase game offspring through selective breeding. These are facts plain and simple. It would take an extremely arrogant and ignorant man to make the claim that he was responsible for a fish being able to swim or a bird being able to fly yet some still believe that a man created the trait of gameness.

So again I will ask you the same question from previous posts but I will word it differently in the hopes that you take a shot at answering it.

If a man is breeding a dog for an isolated trait doesn't the man have to see this isolated trait, recognize said trait and then begin his selection to enhance said trait? If this is in fact the case where did this trait come from?

NGK

 

Dude get this straight, just just made the claim that man did not create gameness yet you also claim that man has no idea where the trait came from, so which is it? At this point you are just being senseless and it seems that you are letting irrationality get the best of you because you have just contradicted yourself in practically the same sentence.

I wasn't gonna use this against you but I think that the defintion of stubborn fits you to the tee and couple that with irrationality, I see no point in arguing with an individual who refuses to work from the same platform of logic as I am operating under, but it is in my nature to refuse to accept that just because you are being irrational about these claims that you are an irrational person. Does that answer your question, the last one you asked? If you don't understand analogies let me pose another question, one that I already mentioned to answer your question, again.

Why is it that two APBT curs ARE capable of producing a game dog. Wouldn't it follow that since you have merely observed them to be curs that they would not posses the gameness as a recessive trait that can be brought out to express itself. You see plenty of breeders have bred curs and produced gameness in their offspring. By your faulty reasoning, since you observed a few (key word) grey wolves you have come to the conlusion that all grey wolves are curs, a logical fallacy, that grey wolves do not posses the gameness trait and therefore they are not responsible for passing the gameness triat to the domesticated predecessor from which APBT's were derived, mere conjecture based on nothing more than a leap of faith. Now, I am not saying that grey wolves are the possesors of the trait, I am not attacking you from that position, I am coming from the perspective that you are trying to pass your belief as knowledge, a belief that is not based on any scientific rigor, which is what usually gives credibility to one who studies a certain phenomenon. If you do not understand this point then your stubborness is has become your bane.

 

90% of what you just said was based on assumptions babelduce, I believe that your letting anger get the best of you sir.

This isn't about winning to me I don't really care what people want to believe, im simply expressing my own beliefs. If you want to try and make me look a certain way to better your argument that is just fine by me. If you want to take the example of 2 APBT curs produceing gamedogs and try and sway your opinion with that statement so be it. To me that particular statement is akin to saying 2 birds produced birds that fly as your chosen test subjects were already refined and themselves came from dogs who had previously show the trait that your breeding for.

Let me make this plain and simple for you so that you can understand it.
1. MODERN DAY WOLVES ARE CURS.
2. 150,000-300,000 YEARS AGO NO MAN WAS ABLE TO TEST WOLVES FOR GAMENESS.
3. I DID NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT THE TRAIT DID NOT COME FROM GREY WOLVES (150,000-300,000 YEARS AGO)
4. REFER BACK TO 1

You can chase your tail all day long man but will get no closer to catching the truth with an incomplete scientific theory than you would with a time machine (or the wand man used to create gameness)

NGK

 

"Man did not create gameness. Man has no idea where the trait came from."

pick one, cause can't have both, one stament contadicts the other. Just trying to help you.

I have proven my point, and practically everything you have used in an attempt discredit my argument has actually worked to debunk statements 1 through 4 in your above post. If you fail to see this you are lost in deliriun.

 

Why can't I have both

Bob did not make this pizza, Bob has no idea where it came from.

Jimmy did not build this fence, Jimmy has no idea where this fence came from.

Gramma did not grow these flowers, Gramma has no idea where they came from.

It seems to work in every other context but yet you fail to see it in the context that I have put it in...

Here's a suggestion, rather than building yourself up by picking apart the menial parts of my posts why don't you post this scientific proof that you speak of that proves you correct?

NGK

 

Here is why you can't have both statements:

1 NGK states that man has no idea where the trait (gameness) came from.
2 NGK is a man.
3 NGK states that man did not create gameness.
4 NGK has no idea where the trait (gameness) came from.
5 NGK has contradicted himself.

 

6 NGK knows where it didn't come from.
7 Babelduce has weak perceptive skills.

Im still waiting for that scientific proof of yours as well as an answer to the question you keep avoiding...

NGK

 

Same applies to 6, buddy, you want me to costruct it for you as well? LOL It is simple because you dont know where the trait came from you cannot know where it didnt come from

7 is just frustration on your part since you are obviously not prepared to accept that what you initial stated has no logical merit.

I never claimed anything contrary or different from your claim that would necessitate me providing scientific proof to defend my position and I welcome you to comb through my posts and quote me if you find ANYTHING that resembles a specific claim. I merely stated that could not state with scientific certainty first, that man did not create gameness and second, that you could logically state that because you observed a few grey wolves to be curs that you could determine that they did not posses the gameness gene.

keep it coming but if you want to resort to passive agressive personal attacks I see no point in any further discussion.

 

I agree, your just tippy toeing around all the questions anyway rather than answering them.

NGK

 

like I stated already, "Quote me"

 

Damn your Obtuse...

NGK

 

Thats what i named my pup but i just call her Badger

 

Lol now that takes gutz! Dig up a 4 yr old thread to tell us your dogs name ! Lmao ,I like your style ! I'm just givin u a hard time .lol

 

Hahhahaha o shit

 

This was a great thread, everyone should read it. What happened to this website? I browsed a few new threads and was very disappointed....

 

Probably the first people that made their dogs fight out of pleasure, pitting two canines together has gone on for millennia.