Galliforms' Natural Enemy?

[Nathan Poe]

Enough games, So what is the point you're trying to make?

Clearly that he is so tone-deaf, it can be communicated over a written medium?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Have I told you lately that there is something fundamentally wrong with you?

That's what makes him a fundie.

 

[Vene]

I've had more productive conversations talking to a wall.

 

[Split Rock]

Is a polar bear a seal's natural enemy?

Yes.

This actually surprises me. As I have said before, I grew up studying Zoology, and the term "natural enemy" is indeed a large part of their vocabulary.

I have to agree with AVET, here. Is the term "natural enemy" a gross oversimplification? Yes, it is. Yet, it is not a term that AVET made up, nor one made up by Professional Creationists. So, why don't we just accept the terminology to simplify things.

It seems most of us agree that Col. Sanders is not a "natural enemy" of chickens, since he helps them to reproduce (or did when he was alive).

That's not my philosophy, Vene. It never even occurred to me that Harland Sanders bred chickens - (although, where else did he get them - duh). You guys make it sound like Galliforms would be extinct, if not for him.

Well, there would be no chickens if it were not for man domesticating wild fowl. So, you could say that.

In any event, if I believed in [macro]evolution, and thought we were just a link in the Zoological chain, I would indeed view this goateed animal as a natural enemy of Galliforms.

Where would I be wrong?

You are wrong because Sanders helped chickens to reproduce and indeed become quite numerous, even if it was to eat them later. I did give you numerous examples of animals for whom we could be considered "natural enemies."

 

[Split Rock]

I've had more productive conversations talking to a wall.

Interesting.... how many walls have you tried to talk to?

 

[Vene]

Interesting.... how many walls have you tried to talk to?

I lost count. I like just talking. It helps me focus my thoughts. There have been many times where I talk to the wall in front of me while typing a response here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have I told you lately that there is something fundamentally wrong with you?

I believe you have --- and that word gave me goosebumps --- thank you for using it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Enough games, So what is the point you're trying to make?

Let me reiterate:

In any event, if I believed in [macro]evolution, and thought we were just a link in the Zoological chain, I would indeed view this goateed animal as a natural enemy of Galliforms.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are wrong because Sanders helped chickens to reproduce and indeed become quite numerous, even if it was to eat them later.

There's something wrong with this statement, and I can't quite put my finger on it. All that comes to mind is the Malthusian Doctrine, but even that's stretching it. Giving credit to an animal that breeds animals just to eat them, and not calling that animal a "natural enemy" is --- to me --- twisted. (And, in case you're wondering --- no, I'm not a vegetarian.)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes.


I have to agree with AVET, here. Is the term "natural enemy" a gross oversimplification? Yes, it is. Yet, it is not a term that AVET made up, nor one made up by Professional Creationists. So, why don't we just accept the terminology to simplify things.

Because in order to go forward, you need to raise the standards, not bring them down to the lowest common denominator.

It seems most of us agree that Col. Sanders is not a "natural enemy" of chickens, since he helps them to reproduce (or did when he was alive).

And the coprorate entity he founded continues to do so after his death. I will stand by my original supposition that there are actually more chickens in the world now than there would be had KFC never been founded.

Well, there would be no chickens if it were not for man domesticating wild fowl. So, you could say that.

Indeed.

You are wrong because Sanders helped chickens to reproduce and indeed become quite numerous, even if it was to eat them later. I did give you numerous examples of animals for whom we could be considered "natural enemies."

Why bother? AV is not interested in information, only his own conclusions.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let me reiterate:

Aside from the fact that you're utterly mistaken -- a point which you've been oblivious to since the OP -- let me ask: So what?

 

[Nathan Poe]

There's something wrong with this statement, and I can't quite put my finger on it. All that comes to mind is the Malthusian Doctrine, but even that's stretching it. Giving credit to an animal that breeds animals just to eat them, and not calling that animal a "natural enemy" is --- to me --- twisted. (And, in case you're wondering --- no, I'm not a vegetarian.)

Why do you misuse the phrase "Mathusian Doctrine"? You're not going to impress anybody by pretending to know what it is.

Harlan Sanders increased the Chicken population of the planet Earth. Deal with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Aside from the fact that you're utterly mistaken -- a point which you've been oblivious to since the OP -- let me ask: So what?

Interesting assessment --- especially in light of my OP being a question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you misuse the phrase "Mathusian Doctrine"? You're not going to impress anybody by pretending to know what it is.

That would be "Malthusian" --- not "Mathusian".

 

[suzmot]

Does AV often resort to singing when he gets pwned?

 

[pgp_protector]

Does AV often resort to singing when he gets pwned?

Singing , /threading , vanishing, it varies from thread to thread.

 

[Split Rock]

There's something wrong with this statement, and I can't quite put my finger on it. All that comes to mind is the Malthusian Doctrine, but even that's stretching it. Giving credit to an animal that breeds animals just to eat them, and not calling that animal a "natural enemy" is --- to me --- twisted. (And, in case you're wondering --- no, I'm not a vegetarian.)

Look... I am trying to use the terminology the way most people do. The problem is, it was never intented to be used with domesticated animals. Humans were "natural enemies" of mammoths, bison, etc., in the sense we hunted them. We don't hunt chickens. Nowadays, we hunt deer, moose, quail, etc... so you can call humans "natural enemies" of these animals.

So... I will ask the question everyone else is asking. Do you have some point, or are you just asking for information?

 

[ReverendDG]

Let me reiterate:

this is nothing short of a straw-man of evolution, plus its pure gibberish.

what is the bloody point of this thread, other than showing you have no clue what you are talking about AV?

 

[Tomk80]

So I will reiterate my original post. This thread has to be the most pointless thread created by AV so far.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Interesting assessment --- especially in light of my OP being a question.

A question based on your mistaken presumptions.

Let me ask again: So what?