Actor commits suicide after his dog euthanized

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:49 am

This is getting too complicated for my head to cope. The opening post was about a dog, so I am focusing on animals that are traditionally kept as pets, such as cats and dogs.

In evolution the time that animals have been domesticated is but a blink of an eye.

Whether man's influence has had any affect is by the by, the main point of any evolution is to continue the species.

The likelihood of feral cats and wild dogs surviving is negligible as man expands and the natural habitats of such animals decline.

Evolution is not down to choice or free thinking, but a minor adaptation than permits the continuation of the species involved, wolves adapted into pet dogs because they are inclined to be domesticated, some species are not.

Horses are that way inclined, their close relation Zebras, as far as I know do not have that facility.

There will always be descendents of wolves kept as pets, due to man's need for them. This cannot realistically be said of many other animals that have not the same adaptability.

And that is evolution, adapt or die, natural selection in action. With or without the assistance of another species, in this instance, man.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:19 am

I think the guy was planning to commit suicide and taking care of his pet was part of the process.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:21 am

Bruv, Is there any research that has focused on this that you wouldn't mind pointing me to? I'm trying to understand how you've substantiated this.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:24 am

flopstock;1385398 wrote: I think the guy was planning to commit suicide and taking care of his pet was part of the process.I agree, but I also believe his decision was driven in large part by the pressure of the neighbors and management. That's why I said it could be argued that it was an altruistic act. Something he did in order to cause the others to reflect on their behavior and beliefs.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:08 am

Ahso!;1385399 wrote: Bruv, Is there any research that has focused on this that you wouldn't mind pointing me to? I'm trying to understand how you've substantiated this.
Research ?

Nah !!! It's just me thinking out loud.

What do you have issue with ?

Ahso!;1385400 wrote: I agree, but I also believe his decision was driven in large part by the pressure of the neighbors and management. That's why I said it could be argued that it was an altruistic act. Something he did in order to cause the others to reflect on their behavior and beliefs.
You are saying the guy did this with all his faculties intact ?

The guy was unwell, distraught, unbalanced, off his rocker.

What other reason is there for taking your own life ?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:11 pm

Bruv;1385416 wrote: Research ?

Nah !!! It's just me thinking out loud.

What do you have issue with ?The fact that it sounds more like rationalization than Evolutionary Theory.

Bruv;1385416 wrote: You are saying the guy did this with all his faculties intact ?

The guy was unwell, distraught, unbalanced, off his rocker.

What other reason is there for taking your own life ?Yes. He was obviously feeling strongly emotional at the time, and he made a decision. People make decisions all the time while in emotional states. Are you claiming people shouldn't make decisions while experiencing emotion?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:14 pm

Ahso!;1385422 wrote: The fact that it sounds more like rationalization than Evolutionary Theory.

Sounds logical to me.

How many wolves and feral cats have you in your neighbourhood, as opposed to ex feral cats and ex wolves ?

The former are gone while the latter flourish.

The strain of wolves that were compliant to domestication have thrived, other less amenable species, taking this to extreme will die out, pets will not, as long as man wants them.

Yes. He was obviously feeling strongly emotional at the time, and he made a decision. People make decisions all the time while in emotional states. Are you claiming people shouldn't make decisions while experiencing emotion?

No not emotional, unbalanced. Anybody that ends their own life, unless terminally ill are insane, if only temporarily.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:17 pm

Bruv;1385431 wrote: Sounds logical to me.

How many wolves and feral cats have you in your neighbourhood, as opposed to ex feral cats and ex wolves ?

The former are gone while the latter flourish.

The strain of wolves that were compliant to domestication have thrived, other less amenable species, taking this to extreme will die out, pets will not, as long as man wants them.What I think I'm failing to get through here is that in Natural Selection it's not humans who control which species' survive and become extinct, nature does. What you're calling Natural Selection is actually Artificial Selection.

Bruv;1385431 wrote: No not emotional, unbalanced. Anybody that ends their own life, unless terminally ill are insane, if only temporarily.You wouldn't call temporary insanity extreme emotionality? I fail to understand why it is you believe yourself qualified to decide who should and should not make the decision to end one's own life.

The guy decided to end it, try to accept that and not psychoanalyze or judge him.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:21 am

Ahso!;1385438 wrote: What I think I'm failing to get through here is that in Natural Selection it's not humans who control which species' survive and become extinct, nature does. What you're calling Natural Selection is actually Artificial Selection.
It is you that doesn't get what I mean about the evolutionary aspect.

Man could have had Meerkats or Badgers as house guests, just as 'cute and lovable' as dogs and cats. But only cats and dogs have the adaptation to become amenable to living symbiotically alongside man. Man has bred and changed them since they adapted to live along side man, but the initial evolutionary change was with the animals. You believe man doesn't choose which species survives or not, and I agree indirectly, but man is part of the evolutionary process and his activities have a direct influence on the survival of all life on earth.Many species are becoming marginalised directly due to mans encroachment on habitat. Species are dieing out daily directly due to mans influence, and nothing else. so man is 'controlling' without any doubt.

You wouldn't call temporary insanity extreme emotionality? I fail to understand why it is you believe yourself qualified to decide who should and should not make the decision to end one's own life.

The guy decided to end it, try to accept that and not psychoanalyze or judge him.
I might call extreme emotion temporary insanity, yes.

I don't decide who can or cannot end their own lives, but I can make a judgement as to why any sane, adjusted, stable person might want to.

The only possible reason a person in control of his mental function would want an early death, would be the certainty of a diminished quality of life and an inevitable painful death.

To end ones own life due to your pet dog being unwelcome in a particular dwelling, with a variety of other options available .......is insanity.

(Have they had the inquest yet ?)

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:38 am

Bruv;1385448 wrote: It is you that doesn't get what I mean about the evolutionary aspect.I completely understand what it is you're saying, Bruv. The problem is it's not supported in any way that I can find, and you've stated it's just a notion on your part. That brings us to a dead end. I have no problem with asserting notions with the idea of investigating them and proving their viability, that's how we learn oftentimes.

Humans cannot consciously direct and control the existence of any other species and still call it Natural Selection. It isn't, that's how simple this is.

Bruv;1385448 wrote: I might call extreme emotion temporary insanity, yes.

I don't decide who can or cannot end their own lives, but I can make a judgement as to why any sane, adjusted, stable person might want to.

The only possible reason a person in control of his mental function would want an early death, would be the certainty of a diminished quality of life and an inevitable painful death.

To end ones own life due to your pet dog being unwelcome in a particular dwelling, with a variety of other options available .......is insanity.

(Have they had the inquest yet ?)What about Socrates and Jesus and other martyrs; Monks who torch themselves as public protests to war and world hunger? How about suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots?

Where do you draw the line in making decisions while experiencing emotion?

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:00 pm

I think it's unfair to say Ahso is just aping spot's POV. It's a legitimate perspective.

I find pets to be akin to slaves.

I've never had a cat that was content to stay inside. Getting along well with an animal doesn't mean you have the right to call it yours.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:37 pm

koan;1385513 wrote: I think it's unfair to say Ahso is just aping spot's POV. It's a legitimate perspective.

I find pets to be akin to slaves.

I've never had a cat that was content to stay inside. Getting along well with an animal doesn't mean you have the right to call it yours.There are only two people "aping" and they are the accusers. They're projecting too, so it's important to consider the source.

I don't deny the influence Spot's reasoning has had on my examination of the subject, nor do I shy from it. We all get our idea's formed from communicating and reasoning within ourselves - discussing matters with others, or someplace else, that's human nature. I've had a lot of readjusting of opinion from many people I've met over the past several years. I can say that everyone I've read of on this forum has influenced my opinion one way or another on different subjects. My goal is to learn, and that means to learn more about myself so i might become a better negotiator of life in order to help my children and grandchildren understand the importance of having an open mind through listening to the ideas of others. I'm my own guinea pig.

I personally appreciate the fact that I've become flexible enough to consider ideas I'd never entertained before and I can tell you with 100% honesty that my family throughly enjoys discussing these different ideas with me. As a family we've been learning how important and fun it is to have open and expansive dialogue. Nothing offends us anymore.

My greatest challenge is and always has been learning to introduce a subject or thought more carefully, but I'm working on it. I've always been a blunt person and some tell me they appreciate the honesty I convey while others are often offended by my style. But I'll get it right eventually or I'll die trying, that's my nature.

Thanks to all of you who tolerate my shortcomings, I promise it's not for naught.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:09 pm

koan;1385513 wrote: Getting along well with an animal doesn't mean you have the right to call it yours.I posted a thread a while back about human appreciation of the tear shape of objects, it was from a talk on TED with Garrison Keillor I believe. It was very interesting. What the talk pointed out was that our appreciation for this shape was very possibly due to evolutionary forces.

The fact that we find certain creatures cute and cuddly reminds me of the Keillor talk. I think it's possible that our attraction to these creature is in fact evolutionary but I disagree that that gives us the right to keep them for our emotional needs of attraction, that's where the immorality comes in, they're living beings.

My thought is that if we'd permit nature to take its course through natural selection we'd be free to appreciate all life to a greater extent because we'd deny ourselves the ownership of pets, and thus, I believe it would cause us to be better at empathizing through knowing that life should not be manufactured by us. This Artificial Selection we've been practicing gives us a permission to choose what has the right to live (survive) and what doesn't (become extinct). We'd become, I believe, more attuned to how fragile life really is. What we're doing is so arrogant IMO that it exceeds any expression I can give it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:58 am

Found the TED link, it was Denis Dutton, not Harrison Keillor. It is well worth your time.

Denis Dutton: A Darwinian theory of beauty | Video on TED.com

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:57 am

Keeping a captive and having a slave are two different things in my humble opinion. My cats do absolutely nothing for me except allow me to clean their litter boxes and feed them. They seem to enjoy being petted but when they show annoyance (not often, I'm happy to say) I leave them alone. They toil not, nor obey my commands.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:03 am

Ahso!;1385516 wrote:

My thought is that if we'd permit nature to take its course through natural selection we'd be free to appreciate all life to a greater extent because we'd deny ourselves the ownership of pets, and thus, I believe it would cause us to be better at empathizing through knowing that life should not be manufactured by us. This Artificial Selection we've been practicing gives us a permission to choose what has the right to live (survive) and what doesn't (become extinct). We'd become, I believe, more attuned to how fragile life really is. What we're doing is so arrogant IMO that it exceeds any expression I can give it.

We have not selected cats or dogs to live with us, they did the choosing.

They evolved as a means of survival, that is evolution in a nutshell as far as I see it.

There are many cuter species that have not gained the same place beside man.

The example I gave earlier was zebras and horses, one is amenable to domestication the other has not. If man could have worked their magic and domesticated zebras I am sure they would replace horses as first choice, because they are prettier.

The fact that we later took the pee and have altered cats and dogs beyond recognition is another story.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:38 am

Bruv;1385540 wrote: We have not selected cats or dogs to live with us, they did the choosing.I'm sorry Bruv but this is delusional. If it's accurate then we should permit all pets to reproduce at will naturally on their own and permit them to come and go as they please and not employ the use of any sort of restraint or confinement. If they have "evolved" to be fit and viable in today's world and circumstances they'll survive, if not, they won't. That's how Evolution by means of Natural Selection works, Bruv. Your representation of the theory [evolution] borders on absurdity.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:49 am

SnoozeAgain;1385539 wrote: Keeping a captive and having a slave are two different things in my humble opinion. My cats do absolutely nothing for me except allow me to clean their litter boxes and feed them. They seem to enjoy being petted but when they show annoyance (not often, I'm happy to say) I leave them alone. They toil not, nor obey my commands.Captivity Cap*tiv"i*ty, n. [L. captivitas: cf. F.

captivit['e].]

1. The state of being a captive or a prisoner.

[1913 Webster]

2. A state of being under control; subjection of the will or

affections; bondage.

[1913 Webster]

Slavery Slav"er*y, n.; pl. Slaveries. [See 2d Slave.]

1. The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection

of one person to the will of another.

[1913 Webster]

Notice any resemblance in those two definitions? We can try to discount facts by using "in my humble opinion" all we wish but it doesn't change them.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:01 am

Ahso!;1385438 wrote: What I think I'm failing to get through here is that in Natural Selection it's not humans who control which species' survive and become extinct, nature does. What you're calling Natural Selection is actually Artificial Selection.

You wouldn't call temporary insanity extreme emotionality? I fail to understand why it is you believe yourself qualified to decide who should and should not make the decision to end one's own life.

The guy decided to end it, try to accept that and not psychoanalyze or judge him.

Natural selection is the changing of a species through adaptation to a changing environment. That humans have changed that environment is irrelevant it is still natural selection.

What has happened to cows, etc. is artificial selection - where humans have analysed the genetic lines and deliberately selected specific beasts to be bred with a specific genetic end in mind. Yes, recently (past hundred years or so) that has happened in the pet world too but it is not the cause of the initial domestication.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:51 am

Does that mean you get what I am on about Bryn ?

Is my theory (worked out all by myself) worth considering ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:01 am

Bruv;1385581 wrote: Does that mean you get what I am on about Bryn ?

Is my theory (worked out all by myself) worth considering ?

I certainly see the interaction between humans and the likes of cats and dogs as being a mutually beneficial one that has evolved over time and led to changes in the evolutionary path of all concerned, man and animal.

Don't forget, until the last fifty years they were not pets but working partners and the recent changes do not change root causes.

As to whether man went out and domesticated the animals or whether the animals found benefit in hooking up with man I don't know but I suspect it must have been a two sided negotiation. After the first couple of successes I'd guess that people, being who we are, would have tried every species that they could get near and some played ball and others ran a mile. I'd also suspect that there were instances where an abandoned newborn would take shelter with man in order to survive.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:17 am

My theory hinges on the initial change being from the animals, dogs and cats, other animals might make better 'cuddly' pets, but failed to make that adaptation.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:24 am

I tried to domesticate a chicken once.. It was a clucked up mess.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:30 am

Bruv;1385584 wrote: My theory hinges on the initial change being from the animals, dogs and cats, other animals might make better 'cuddly' pets, but failed to make that adaptation.

Depends on what you mean by change - if, for example, a man found an orphaned wolf cub and "adopted" it and that cub came to accept the human family as its pack then I'd see that as the wolf making the first change so yes, I'd agree with you.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:18 pm

That is exactly my point.

Over time I suspect various animals have been adopted by being found motherless, so it would be reasonable to assume other cuter cuddlier or prettier animals might share mans space with them.

Only the cat and dog has made that leap.

Further to that and the idea that we have taken their natural tendencies away and they couldn't survive without our help, that is nonsense.

Any cat worth it's salt will kill to eat at a pinch, and the same with many dog breeds.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:20 pm

Ahso!;1385556 wrote: Notice any resemblance in those two definitions? We can try to discount facts by using "in my humble opinion" all we wish but it doesn't change them.

So you're saying that every convict in our prison system is a slave. You're determined to be 'right' in this discussion but in my humble opinion you're blowing hot air... to put it politely.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:34 pm

SnoozeAgain;1385591 wrote: So you're saying that every convict in our prison system is a slave. You're determined to be 'right' in this discussion but in my humble opinion you're blowing hot air... to put it politely.You used two different terms that generally mean the same, I point that out to you and you accuse me of being obstinate? Why not try rewording what it is you're trying to say to clarify your meaning, if you can, and advance the discussion instead of becoming accusatory once again.

It's a discussion forum. We're discussing a subject. And yes, I'm defending my position, a position that I went to great lengths to research and develop. I have no problem being wrong on this or any other subject, all it takes is a convincing argument which can be proven. Something you haven't done.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:37 pm

Bryn Mawr;1385578 wrote: Natural selection is the changing of a species through adaptation to a changing environment. That humans have changed that environment is irrelevant it is still natural selection.

What has happened to cows, etc. is artificial selection - where humans have analysed the genetic lines and deliberately selected specific beasts to be bred with a specific genetic end in mind. Yes, recently (past hundred years or so) that has happened in the pet world too but it is not the cause of the initial domestication.Can we agree to use Wikipedia as a reference? I'd say your time line is off as is what you're defining as "domestication".

"The origin of the domestic dog began with the domestication of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago. Genetic and archaeological evidence shows that humans domesticated wolves on more than one occasion, with the present lineage of C. l. familiaris arising about 15,000 years ago. Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal, a source of food, fur, and a beast of burden. The process continues to this day, with the intentional artificial selection and cross-breeding of dogs to create new breeds of dogs."

Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:47 pm

"Domestication is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of artificial selection, is changed at the genetic level, accentuating traits desired by humans. It's different than taming in that a change in the phenotypical expression and genotype of the animal occurs, whereas taming is simply the process by which animals become acclimatized to human presence."

Domestication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:49 pm

Ahso!;1385597 wrote: You used two different terms that generally mean the same, I point that out to you and you accuse me of being obstinate? Why not try rewording what it is you're trying to say to clarify your meaning, if you can, and advance the discussion instead of becoming accusatory once again.

It's a discussion forum. We're discussing a subject. And yes, I'm defending my position, a position that I went to great lengths to research and develop. I have no problem being wrong on this or any other subject, all it takes is a convincing argument which can be proven. Something you haven't done.

Two different terms that mean the same thing according to the definitions that YOU came up with. Are you saying prison inmates are slaves?

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:17 pm

SnoozeAgain;1385611 wrote: Are you saying prison inmates are slaves?
At the risk of butting in, I've made that claim in several threads before now. I think there are more parallels than there are differences.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:26 pm

Well then, I'm sure Ahso has also made that claim.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:34 pm

SnoozeAgain;1385614 wrote: Well then, I'm sure Ahso has also made that claim.

To be fair quite a few posters have, on and off. Valerie might have.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:37 pm

Valerie would have come to that conclusion on her own, if that's the case.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:18 am

Bruv;1385590 wrote: That is exactly my point.

Over time I suspect various animals have been adopted by being found motherless, so it would be reasonable to assume other cuter cuddlier or prettier animals might share mans space with them.

Only the cat and dog has made that leap.

Further to that and the idea that we have taken their natural tendencies away and they couldn't survive without our help, that is nonsense.

Any cat worth it's salt will kill to eat at a pinch, and the same with many dog breeds.

Indeed, they have been employed to do just that throughout history.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:22 am

Ahso!;1385598 wrote: Can we agree to use Wikipedia as a reference? I'd say your time line is off as is what you're defining as "domestication".

"The origin of the domestic dog began with the domestication of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago. Genetic and archaeological evidence shows that humans domesticated wolves on more than one occasion, with the present lineage of C. l. familiaris arising about 15,000 years ago. Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal, a source of food, fur, and a beast of burden. The process continues to this day, with the intentional artificial selection and cross-breeding of dogs to create new breeds of dogs."

Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where have I given any form of timeline for domestication?

I'm fully aware of when domestication started and a range of five to thirty thousand yeas BP for the various species is a reasonable starting point.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:17 am

Bryn Mawr;1385638 wrote: Where have I given any form of timeline for domestication?

I'm fully aware of when domestication started and a range of five to thirty thousand yeas BP for the various species is a reasonable starting point.How I understood what you wrote was that domestication had at least two stages and the first stage of what you've called domestication is actually taming or acclamation. My two previous posts point out that Artificial Selection is domestication while the others are not. So for all intent and purposes, when we talk about the domestication of pets we're talking about Selective Breeding (Artificial Selection), at least that's according to Wikipedia.

Animals did not get themselves domesticated, humans did that to them and it is not nor was it ever any kind of mutual evolutionary arrangement or agreement - that's ludicrous.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:41 am

Ahso!;1385639 wrote: How I understood what you wrote was that domestication had at least two stages and the first stage of what you've called domestication is actually taming or acclamation. My two previous posts point out that Artificial Selection is domestication while the others are not. So for all intent and purposes, when we talk about the domestication of pets we're talking about Selective Breeding (Artificial Selection), at least that's according to Wikipedia.

Animals did not get themselves domesticated, humans did that to them and it is not nor was it ever any kind of mutual evolutionary arrangement or agreement - that's ludicrous.

Define artificial selection.

Early man did not know anything of genetics, they did not know that you could select for a desired characteristic. What they did was change the environment within which the animal existed and, if the line remained within that environment, natural selection kicked in. The "artificial selection" involved was based on which animals were of a nature to stay and which ran off at the first opportunity, in other words natural selection due to an artificial environment.

Where there has been artificial selection is post domestication when man deliberately engineered separate breeds for different functions.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:02 am

I know what you're referring to: n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#Domestication

For anyone interested:

"Studies on the genetic distance for mitochondrial DNA on dogs and Eurasian wolves confirmed that wolves are the exclusive ancestral species to dogs. Domestic dogs possess four mtDNA lineages, suggesting four independent domestication events.[16] A later study identified mtDNA evidence suggesting a common origin from a single East Asian gene pool for all dog populations,[17] while another, using a much larger data set of nuclear markers, points to the Middle East as the source of most of the genetic diversity in the domestic dog and a more likely origin of domestication events.[18] A study by the Kunming Institute of Zoology found that the domestic dog is descended from wolves tamed less than 16,300 years ago south of the Yangtse river in China.[19] Morphological comparisons have narrowed the likely ancestral subspecies of gray wolf to wolves of the Middle Eastern and South Asian variety.[5]

The actual domestication process is a source of debate. Although it is popularly assumed that dogs are the result of artificial selection, the general intractability of adult wolves to human handling has led certain experts to theorise that the domestication process occurred through natural selection when Mesolithic human communities began building permanent settlements in which a new ecological niche (middens and landfills) was opened to wolves. These wolves would have formed a commensal relationship with humans, feeding on their waste over many generations, with natural selection favouring assertive wolves with shorter flight distances in human presence, and causing physical changes related to the redundancy of features adapted for hunting big game."

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:17 am

Bryn Mawr;1385641 wrote:

Early man did not know anything of genetics, they did not know that you could select for a desired characteristic. What they did was change the environment within which the animal existed and, if the line remained within that environment, natural selection kicked in. The "artificial selection" involved was based on which animals were of a nature to stay and which ran off at the first opportunity, in other words natural selection due to an artificial environment.

Where there has been artificial selection is post domestication when man deliberately engineered separate breeds for different functions.We only know what we have record of, either through recorded history or archeology and paleontology.

What I'd say is that early humans had an innate understanding of genetics. As an example I'd point to religion. For as long as we know religions have insisted people engage in relationships of "like-minded" individuals.

Since all species are products of the selection process they have always had a intuitive understanding of evolution and the selection process even though they could not explain it theoretically. I gave an example of this a couple yeas ago on FG. I'll go find it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:52 am

Ahso!;1385659 wrote: Since all species are products of the selection process they have always had a intuitive understanding of evolution and the selection process even though they could not explain it theoretically. I gave an example of this a couple yeas ago on FG. I'll go find it.Here is the quote I was looking for:

"True love means growth for the whole organism, whose members are all interdependent and serve each other. That is the outward form of the inner working of the Spirit, the organism of the Body governed by Christ. We see the same thing among the bees, who all work with equal zeal in gathering honey."

- Ehrenpreis [1650]

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:40 am

Kinda getting tired of Ahso all over the dog threads. Most of us already 'got it', you can rest assured we don't need your sermonizing IN EVERY GOD DAMN THREAD.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:55 am

I don't 'do' all this quoting from honoured sources of research.

I can see what is so obvious as to be beyond any argument.

Let me try and explain.

I don't get the natural selection and early mans understanding of genetics or the degree that mans intervention has altered the animals over so many years has any point in this at all.

There are so very many animals that man has 'domesticated' over the generations, during that time man has genetically altered them.....no question.

Man has also genetically altered dogs and cats......no question.

Many animals have been brought into mans domain with the wish or hope they would become close to man as his 'pet', as close to man as their dogs and cats. Close enough to lay at his feet, and in exchange for food and warmth in return for some sort of affection and loyalty.

No other two species have come close to that relationship than dogs and cats.

Why ?

Because no other species has made that initial first leap to become amenable and continued through generations to remain that way.

Obviously during those centuries of close proximity to man and interbreeding with other 'Pets' the genetics have mellowed and refined that first leap of amenability to the state it is today.

If the first dogs and cats had not had the 'friendship' gene, man would have kept them outside their dwellings the same as their sheep, cows, pigs, hamsters, horses etc. that have become domesticated.

It is not for want of trying that other 'pretty' or more intelligent animals have not made that 'friendship' leap.

These days pigs and chimpanzees and other exotic animals are 'kept' as pets, chimps will still rip your face off if they feel like it.

Some individual animals have been able to scratch man's itch , but no species has been consistently suited and able than cats and dogs, and that first move was unaided or manufactured by man 'altering' those first 'pets'

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:05 pm

You shouldn't even have to explain that, Bruv.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:28 pm

SnoozeAgain;1385678 wrote: You shouldn't even have to explain that, Bruv.
What else would I do with my spare time ?

I ain't got no pets to play with.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:52 pm

Bruv;1385677 wrote: I don't 'do' all this quoting from honoured sources of research.Bruv, when a person is curious and wants information on repairing a car, they don't ask a plummer or go to a plumbing website. The internet provides access to information when people find themselves engaged in conversation on subjects they may not be 100% proficient in. When discussing a subject such as this it's worth checking to make sure we've got facts straight.

Bruv;1385677 wrote: I can see what is so obvious as to be beyond any argument.

Let me try and explain.

I don't get the natural selection and early mans understanding of genetics or the degree that mans intervention has altered the animals over so many years has any point in this at all.

There are so very many animals that man has 'domesticated' over the generations, during that time man has genetically altered them.....no question.

Man has also genetically altered dogs and cats......no question.

Many animals have been brought into mans domain with the wish or hope they would become close to man as his 'pet', as close to man as their dogs and cats. Close enough to lay at his feet, and in exchange for food and warmth in return for some sort of affection and loyalty.

No other two species have come close to that relationship than dogs and cats.

Why ?

Because no other species has made that initial first leap to become amenable and continued through generations to remain that way.

Obviously during those centuries of close proximity to man and interbreeding with other 'Pets' the genetics have mellowed and refined that first leap of amenability to the state it is today.

If the first dogs and cats had not had the 'friendship' gene, man would have kept them outside their dwellings the same as their sheep, cows, pigs, hamsters, horses etc. that have become domesticated.

It is not for want of trying that other 'pretty' or more intelligent animals have not made that 'friendship' leap.

These days pigs and chimpanzees and other exotic animals are 'kept' as pets, chimps will still rip your face off if they feel like it.

Some individual animals have been able to scratch man's itch , but no species has been consistently suited and able than cats and dogs, and that first move was unaided or manufactured by man 'altering' those first 'pets'Sorry Bruv, but you're not representing evolution properly.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:59 pm

One thing worth saying about Santino is that at least he took care of his pet before taking his own life. Poor pup would have probably had a pretty traumatic experience had it not been euthanized first.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:02 pm

Ahso!;1385682 wrote: One thing worth saying about Santino is that at least he took care of his pet before taking his own life. Poor pup would have probably had a pretty traumatic experience had it not been euthanized first.

You're like a cracked record every time we have a thread on cats or dogs.

It's the same old posts re-written saying the same old thing.

The most Intelligent posts on this thread are Bruv's who Is spot on. ( no pun Intended ).

I've done my own research Into the domestication of dogs and cats prior to this thread and I have been here before with Spot.

There Is a debate as to weather man domesticated dogs or weather wild wolves chose to take up with man In order to survive as a species and survive.

The most common theory and It Is only theory, Is that man took new born wolf cubs and raised them for use as security against other tribes and hunting but like the cat who chose to live amongst man for the abundance of rodents around their camps, the wolf cub found It was a mutual experience of benefit to both sides.

Where all of your arguments fall down Is by looking at two very different wild species today. The wolf and the wild dog of the Savannah.

Wild dog

Yellowstone National Park - Yellowstone Wolf Numbers Decline (U.S. National Park Service)

Both of these species are far removed from each other with different terrain but the one thing they share In common, Is that neither have any Intervention what-so-ever of man. The African wild dog Is virtually extinct and the wild wolves of Yellowstone are In decline. This Is due to draught, disease, In territory fighting and cubs falling pray to predators.

In fact, If man does not Intervene, certainly , the African wild dog will be extinct within a decade.

The Interesting part here Is that man has had to Intervene with the African wild dog and In some nature reserves, the dog Is finding this mutually beneficial In order to survive. Thus, I conclude as Bruv did that domestication was part of the evolution process.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:40 pm

Ahso!;1385681 wrote: Bruv, when a person is curious and wants information on repairing a car, they don't ask a plummer or go to a plumbing website. The internet provides access to information when people find themselves engaged in conversation on subjects they may not be 100% proficient in. When discussing a subject such as this it's worth checking to make sure we've got facts straight.

Sorry Bruv, but you're not representing evolution properly.

Ahso, when a person engages you in conversation and gives their opinion, that opinion is unavailable on Google.

I understand the main man Darwin started out with a theory, a theory is a nugget of an idea, Darwin didn't restrict his thought process to what was 'known' to be true, he thought 'outside the box'

At no time have I discussed Evolution. as I believe evolution is irrelevant to the subject.

I believe whatever the cat and dog has is intrinsic, elemental, innate, inborn in those two species,that all the other animals man has come into contact with since time began has not........no other species has shown that particular amenability.

How else would one explain the fact that despite man living in close proximity to many other animals, none has ever formed such a relationship with man ?

Plumber has a B in it from the Latin for Lead (Plumbum) one of the earliest forms of pipes, which strangely enough was probably what Darwin had his water delivered through............lead poisoning can affect the the brain and nervous system.......so it's amazing he came up with such a theory after that poor start. My Dad was a Plumber.

The last bit was to illustrate the way my brain works......a bit like a scatter gun....whatever that is. I tend to think laterally, turn everything on it's head and reassemble it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:08 pm

Bruv;1385688 wrote:

I understand the main man Darwin started out with a theory, a theory is a nugget of an idea, Darwin didn't restrict his thought process to what was 'known' to be true, he thought 'outside the box'

At no time have I discussed Evolution. as I believe evolution is irrelevant to the subject.

Another point where all Ahso's theorising falls down Is that by his theory, evolution Immediately ceased the moment, thousands of years ago when the first cat strolled onto a settlement or the first wolf cub was adopted by the cave man. It makes his theory Impossible for evolution has and never will stand still.

Another Interesting part of evolution In animals Is the extraordinary process where one animals behaviour In one part of the world Is Imitated by the same species In another part of the world. I can't remember the name of It but will try to find a link. As an example, cattle In North America worked out that to get to lusher pastures, by rolling over cattle grids they could beat the system that kept them confined to their ranch. Although cattle In India had never come Into contact with cattle In North America, they started to do the exact same thing.