Dogs only make more dogs - really?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm arguing that when someone speaks of dominance, it's concerning the ability for that life form to rule, control other life forms.

In your silly world of dominance, cats and dogs dominate humans. Keep going, this is entertaining.

I was already aware of your inability to answer simple question, but I'd like to believe that you are capable of answering simple questions.
So I will repeat: in the most BASIC biological sense, which is to live and create offspring, bacteria have us beat since they can produce offspring quicker and more numerous than humans can. That means, in the most basic biological sense, bacteria are the dominant life-form on the Earth.
Do you agree that, in the most basic biological definition of dominance, this is true?

 

[justlookinla]

I was already aware of your inability to answer simple question, but I'd like to believe that you are capable of answering simple questions.
So I will repeat: in the most BASIC biological sense, which is to live and create offspring, bacteria have us beat since they can produce offspring quicker and more numerous than humans can. That means, in the most basic biological sense, bacteria are the dominant life-form on the Earth.
Do you agree that, in the most basic biological definition of dominance, this is true?

Do you agree that dogs and cats dominate humans?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you agree that dogs and cats dominate humans?

Answer. The question. That has been presented to you. Do not give me another question as an attempt to answer it.
In the most BASIC biological sense, which is to live and create offspring, bacteria have us beat since they can produce offspring quicker and more numerous than humans can. That means, in the most basic biological sense, bacteria are the dominant life-form on the Earth.
Do you agree that, in the most basic biological definition of dominance, this is true?

 

[justlookinla]

Answer. The question. That has been presented to you. Do not give me another question as an attempt to answer it.
In the most BASIC biological sense, which is to live and create offspring, bacteria have us beat since they can produce offspring quicker and more numerous than humans can. That means, in the most basic biological sense, bacteria are the dominant life-form on the Earth.
Do you agree that, in the most basic biological definition of dominance, this is true?

I don't blame you for not wanting to examine your claim. If you believe dogs and cats, both producing offspring quicker and more numerous than humans, are more dominant than humans, so be it.

Let's add chickens, pigs and llamas to your list of life forms which dominate humans.

Keep going, this is entertaining.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't blame you for not wanting to examine your claim. If you believe dogs and cats, both producing offspring quicker and more numerous than humans, are more dominant than humans, so be it.

Let's add chickens, pigs and llamas to your list of life forms which dominate humans.

Keep going, this is entertaining.

How old are you? Before the change in format, I'm certain that I saw your age listed as something over 60. But I seriously doubt it with how childish you are acting right now.
So I will repeat: in the most BASIC biological sense, which is to live and create offspring, bacteria have us beat since they can produce offspring quicker and more numerous than humans can. That means, in the most basic biological sense, bacteria are the dominant life-form on the Earth.
Do you agree that, in the most basic biological definition of dominance, this is true?

If you do not answer this question and reply in a childish manner, I will have no recourse but to stop this conversation because I will not have a conversation with someone as childish as you are acting right now.

 

[justlookinla]

How old are you? Before the change in format, I'm certain that I saw your age listed as something over 60. But I seriously doubt it with how childish you are acting right now.
So I will repeat: in the most BASIC biological sense, which is to live and create offspring, bacteria have us beat since they can produce offspring quicker and more numerous than humans can. That means, in the most basic biological sense, bacteria are the dominant life-form on the Earth.
Do you agree that, in the most basic biological definition of dominance, this is true?

If you do not answer this question and reply in a childish manner, I will have no recourse but to stop this conversation because I will not have a conversation with someone as childish as you are acting right now.

What's the problem with examining the implications of your view? In your world, dogs and cats dominate humans. But I assure you, that's only in your world, it's not the real world.

In the most basic definition of dominance, is this true?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What's the problem with examining the implications of your view? In your world, dogs and cats dominate humans. But I assure you, that's only in your world, it's not the real world.

In the most basic definition of dominance, is this true?

Okay, I'm done. You obviously choose to play these childish little games instead of just being an adult and answer the question given to you.
If you had actually answered the question I had put forward to you, I'd have answered your questions, but no. Since you refuse to be an adult and actually engage in actual adult conversation, I will not talk to you further on this topic. I'd reiterate my claim of you being a brick wall, but in all honesty, a brick wall would be a better conversational partner.

 

[justlookinla]

Okay, I'm done. You obviously choose to play these childish little games instead of just being an adult and answer the question given to you.
If you had actually answered the question I had put forward to you, I'd have answered your questions, but no. Since you refuse to be an adult and actually engage in actual adult conversation, I will not talk to you further on this topic. I'd reiterate my claim of you being a brick wall, but in all honesty, a brick wall would be a better conversational partner.

You obviously don't want to talk about dogs and cats dominating humans. I don't blame you, everyone knows that's a foolish argument.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Do you agree that dogs and cats dominate humans?

No, but bacteria certainly do. Your body contains only 10% human cells, the other 90% are bacteria and viruses. also, for every human gene in your body, there are 360 microbial genes. How about that for domination?

 

[justlookinla]

No, but bacteria certainly do. Your body contains only 10% human cells, the other 90% are bacteria and viruses. also, for every human gene in your body, there are 360 microbial genes. How about that for domination?

That's not domination, that's population.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you agree that dogs and cats dominate humans?

They certainly got us taking care of them, intentionally or not.

But I would suggest that if put out on the street to fend for themselves - half of those different breeds would cease to exist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Okay, I'm done. You obviously choose to play these childish little games instead of just being an adult and answer the question given to you.
If you had actually answered the question I had put forward to you, I'd have answered your questions, but no. Since you refuse to be an adult and actually engage in actual adult conversation, I will not talk to you further on this topic. I'd reiterate my claim of you being a brick wall, but in all honesty, a brick wall would be a better conversational partner.

Come on, you should know better.

Did you really expect an honest or adult debate from people that ignore in a discussion about dogs that Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. That Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff.

And only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation observed in the species. And then ignore this when it comes to classifying the fossil record?

If evolutionist's had never seen a dog in life nor knew anything about them and found fossils of the Husky and Mastiff and then found fossils of the Chinook later in the layer, they would claim the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook simply because the Chinook appears at a later time in the record. Yet we know from observational fact that this is not what has occurred, even if the Chinook appeared at a later date. The Husky remained a Husky, the Mastiff remained a Mastiff.

Only by ignoring the observational data and refusing to apply it to the fossil record do they come up with claims that can not be supported by direct empirical observations. Claims that are in direct conflict with every observation of the natural world. Which is why we only get claims and no observational data when it comes to evolution.

How can you really go into a debate with an evolutionist and expect straight answers - when their only recourse is ignoring the observational evidence and twisting the data to suit their ends? I'd be willing to consider their theory if they stopped ignoring the observational data when formulating theory.

 

[justlookinla]

They certainly got us taking care of them, intentionally or not.

But I would suggest that if put out on the street to fend for themselves - half of those different breeds would cease to exist.

Yes, the companionship of a pet certainly has a way of changing the priorities in one's life at times.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, the companionship of a pet certainly has a way of changing the priorities in one's life at times.

Tell me about it, I got two and it's like having 4 year old's for life.

Or at least 15 years or so.

 

[46AND2]

And only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation observed in the species. And then ignore this when it comes to classifying the fossil record?

What did the wolf mate with to create the first dog? Or, alternately, how did one pair of dog kind on the ark become many?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What did the wolf mate with to create the first dog? Or, alternately, how did one pair of dog kind on the ark become many?

The first pair were genetically perfect to start with and contained all possible combinations within their genome. This is why the genome DEGRADES over time, it does not improve. Errors accumulate over generations. This is self explanatory if anyone understands genetic errors and how they occur.

This is why the genome has self-repair mechanisms, to prevent as many damages as possible. If mutation was truly a beneficial process, the genome would not attempt to repair these errors. The belief that mutations are the cause of diversity is simply that - a belief - Fairie Dust. While these same people ignore that Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mate with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. They ignore the natural variation that occurs right in front of their eyes in favor of something never once observed. Never has the Mastiff or Husky been observed to evolve into the Chinook - nor anything. Never has the Asian or African been observed to evolve into the Afro-Asian - nor anything. Only when they mate is variation ever observed within the species.

Deny this all you want - it will never change the fact that this is how variation occurs - by two infraspecific taxa within the species mating and producing a new infraspecific taxa.

If evolutionist's had never seen a dog in life nor knew anything about them and found fossils of the Husky and Mastiff and then found fossils of the Chinook later in the layer, they would claim the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook simply because the Chinook appears at a later time in the record. Yet we know from observational fact that this is not what has occurred, even if the Chinook appeared at a later date. The Husky remained a Husky, the Mastiff remained a Mastiff.

Only by ignoring the observational data and refusing to apply it to the fossil record do they come up with claims that can not be supported by direct empirical observations. Claims that are in direct conflict with every observation of the natural world. Which is why we only get claims and no observational data when it comes to evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Foxes and great danes don't interbreed. So how can they be the same kind?

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

"An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Are you telling me you can't recognize they belong to the same Kind? Even evolutionists do not make this claim and put them all from the same ancestor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae

"that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals."

Your problem is you wont even admit things are the same species when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of your eyes - like Darwin's finches. So you don't have a clue as how to classify anything except on whim and whatever you can make fit your evolutionary theory. Refuse to correct your mistakes in classification simply because Darwin thought they were the prime example of speciation because they were supposedly reproductively isolated. Even if recent DNA tests could not differentiate between them and could find no way to justify calling them separate species. Not to mention the DNA tests showed they have all been interbreeding since arriving on the islands.

No, your entire classification system is based on whim and refusal to correct mistakes when they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes. Evolution = error based upon uncorrected error, based upon uncorrected error..... And instead of admitting to a simple mistake in classification they will continue to support the lie - and then wonder why no one believes them anymore. They can't be trusted with the simple truths, let alone the big ones. If they will lie to cover up a simple mistake in classification with finches, they will certainly lie about everything else.

 

[Crystal C]

The minute one of your golden retrievers gives birth to a giraffe you let us know.

A common argument heard form creationist is that a so called dog can give birth to a dog.

Well, so they say at least. I am raised with Golden retrievers. They are said to be dogs, but they are also Golden Retrievers. My parent bread Golden retrievers, so I seen quite a few Golden Retrievers puppies in my days. We also had another dog, a single German shepherd. Curiously enough, even though German shepherds are dogs, I never seen any German shepherd be born! Not once - not ever! Like I said I seen a lot of Golden retriever puppies been born, but never ever seen even a single German shepherd been by a Golden retriever. And I have seen many, many Golden retrievers been born.

So what is the problem you may ask. Well the problem is that creationists claims a Golden Retrievers and German Shepard both are so called dogs. So I asked myself if a dogs can give birth to a dog, then why did our Golden retrievers never give birth to a German shepherd? Maybe I had not waited long enough for it to happen.

Then it so happen I learned that no German shepherd has ever give birth to anything else than German shepherds either. I was amazed when I heard this, so I started to investigate the claim that dogs give birth to other dogs. I took me some years because I have investigate this issue very careful. At every instance I checked out a so called dog it turns out that this so called dog never give birth to another dog. Not once in the entire written record of dog breeders have it ever happen! Not in a single case have I been able to verify that a claimed dog can give birth to another dog!

This really started to bothered me. Where is the missing dog that can give birth to another dog? Where is it? Where are all the dogs creationist claims exists? I have asked people to show me a dog. But it have not happen yet - not even once! They showed me an Irish setter. I said I could not verify that an Irish setter was a dog. I told them no claimed dog has ever been verified to be a dog. I told them they believed in a myth. They told me I was an idiot. But I know I am right. I explained I have checked it myself, but they did not want to know the truth. They was happy to believe in their lie.

The truth must get out! There is no dogs! Because if dogs exists, then where are all the dogs? Where are the dogs that can give birth to another dogs? ? I never seen one, not a single one! I tell you it will never happen because they are no such things as dogs or a dog kind! The truth is that creationists just made that up!

Then I investigated cats, birds, everything.... same story there. Every time I check. A tiger has never been reported to give birth to a lion. Nor has a mallard ever given birth to a golden eagle. There was no bird kind or cat kind either... it is all a lie!

Dogs, cat and birds does not exists! And there is no evidence they ever have existed! Dog, cats and birds are fictions of the mind - in the minds of the creationists! The only reason these kinds are claimed to exist is so they can use it to prove the theory of evolution is false. But it is a lie! There are no dogs! The theory of evolution is still true! Creationists only believe dogs exists! Creationism is a religion!

Creationist: SHOW ME YOUR DOG! Show me the evidence! Prove a dog exists!

Just one dog please!

 

[lasthero]

The minute one of your golden retrievers gives birth to a giraffe you let us know.

I'm sure he'll let the whole world know, because nothing in any science ever says that's even possible.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The minute one of your golden retrievers gives birth to a giraffe you let us know.

I'd be interested to be told when it gives birth to anything but a Golden Retriever - unless when it mates with another infraspecific taxa within the canine Kind - then we would expect that. He's just confused as to what dogs are is all. Fails to realize both Golden Retriever and German Shepard are both classified as dogs. So lost in the Fairie Dust of evolution he fails to realize even evolutionists classify them as dogs.