[BelieverInGod]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

**sigh**

Some breeds do have naturally docked tails.

http://www.dogforums.com/2-general-dog-forum/34105-naturally-docked-tails.html

I breed Brittanys and Rottweilers, some Brittanys have naturally docked tails, however if you breed two naturally docked dogs together, most of the puppies will still have tails.

The only reason I can see for that is that God wants us to dock some. Maybe it's a sign, a lot of hunters believe that the naturally docked dog is not as good a hunter as a human docked dog.

I will admit I have never seen a Rottweiler born without a tail though.

Because you feel that chopping a dog's tail off means the next generation should not have a tail as well?

No it was my question to people who said that we don't have tails because we stopped using them. Docked dogs don't have tails, therefore they don't use them. According to evilutionists their tails should then go away.

I don't believe that stuff. I believe God made dogs with tails, and we dock for our own reasons. So I DO expect my puppies to be born with tails.

[gm jack]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

No, nobody has "seen" these things. They CLAIM to and give no evidence.

A scientific paper that offers no evidence will be laughed out.

No, but they certainly enjoy talking out of their ass as if they did

Some of us do have a decent understanding of most things. However, we don't have access to resources that have years long waiting lists for experts in the subject.

When I look through a kaleidoscope, I see a bunch of things that don't exist. What's the difference?

A kaleidoscope is a tube of mirrors designed to make a series of beads etc look pretty weird. A microscope is a series of lenses designed to magnify what is actually there.

Wrong, poison kills you because God lets it. That's why Jesus promises that Christians can drink poison and not die

Can we put that to the test?

Oh well when you say the exact same thing that has been said by every eviloutionist that has shown up yeah that's convincing.

So why is it wrong?

I'll give gm Jack one thing, at least he tried to answer my dog tail question. He's wrong of course and tried to turn it into a liebral PETA cause, but at least he tried. The reason docked breeds are born with tails is because God wants them to be. That's why in Brittanys when you breed two that God docked you still get puppies with tails.

PETA are a load of morons who have no idea what they are doing, and kill more animals than they save. Their advertising budget is several times that of that they use to actually help animals.

Docked breeds do not always have their tails docked. A vet (or in some counties the breeder) cuts them off. There is no genetic change, so therefore, no change is the offspring. It's like saying because a man and a woman shave their hair off (for sake of argument), the baby will also be bald. Humans are changing the animals beyond how they would normally develop, so these changes are not reflected in the next generation. In fact, better idea - circumcision. In both cases, you are chopping off part of the body at birth. In certain populations, such as the Jewish and Americans, almost everybody has the procedure, but everyone is still born with it. Just because it is there does not stop the body retaining the genetic material for how to make it.

Still think he's going to make the second worst vet out there (well maybe the worst, can he tell a boy cat from a girl cat?) but meh.

Because you feel that chopping a dog's tail off means the next generation should not have a tail as well?

[BelieverInGod]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

the short answer is that we do have tails.

http://www.mountnittany.org/assets/images/krames/6097.jpg

it is made from the vertebrae of the tail fused together. when our ancestors began to walk upright instead of in a monkey-like crawl, we no longer needed it for balance and hold branches (mostly becuase we no long lived in trees).

it was selected against by competition for food, becuase the ancestors that could run the fastest upright were the ones who reproduced more frequently, thus shifting the gene pool and producing more genotypes of shorter tails. eventutally, this enough to remove the tail from our external anatomy all together.

however, it still remains mounted to our pelvic bone. it servers humans no purpose, and thus would not be a design feature from god, only a waste of his time.

Oh well when you say the exact same thing that has been said by every eviloutionist that has shown up yeah that's convincing.

I'll give gm Jack one thing, at least he tried to answer my dog tail question. He's wrong of course and tried to turn it into a liebral PETA cause, but at least he tried. The reason docked breeds are born with tails is because God wants them to be. That's why in Brittanys when you breed two that God docked you still get puppies with tails.

Still think he's going to make the second worst vet out there (well maybe the worst, can he tell a boy cat from a girl cat?) but meh.

[anonebuam]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

the short answer is that we do have tails.

http://www.mountnittany.org/assets/images/krames/6097.jpg

it is made from the vertebrae of the tail fused together. when our ancestors began to walk upright instead of in a monkey-like crawl, we no longer needed it for balance and hold branches (mostly becuase we no long lived in trees).

it was selected against by competition for food, becuase the ancestors that could run the fastest upright were the ones who reproduced more frequently, thus shifting the gene pool and producing more genotypes of shorter tails. eventutally, this enough to remove the tail from our external anatomy all together.

however, it still remains mounted to our pelvic bone. it servers humans no purpose, and thus would not be a design feature from god, only a waste of his time.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

Well I haven't seen some things, but other people have. Same deal.

No, nobody has "seen" these things. They CLAIM to and give no evidence.

Because everything who adopts a non-religious view is automatically has a PhD in every subject ever.

No, but they certainly enjoy talking out of their ass as if they did

1) Get a microscope.

When I look through a kaleidoscope, I see a bunch of things that don't exist. What's the difference?

2)Without mitochondria, cyanide would not kill you. They inhibit one of the proteins involved in electron transport. Go on, prove me wrong.

Wrong, poison kills you because God lets it. That's why Jesus promises that Christians can drink poison and not die

[gm jack]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

No, but God did! Why are you calling God a liar?

Well I haven't seen some things, but other people have. Same deal.

How convenient.

Because everything who adopts a non-religious view is automatically has a PhD in every subject ever.

Who says Mitochondria are real? To accept that, you'd have to accept the wacky idea that humans are made up of cells, when we all know men are made of dust from the ground, and women are made from men's rib.

1) Get a microscope.
2)Without mitochondria, cyanide would not kill you. They inhibit one of the proteins involved in electron transport. Go on, prove me wrong.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

Did you observe the world being created 6000 years ago?

No, but God did! Why are you calling God a liar?

I am not an astronomer, and lack access to the millions of pounds of equipment that would be necessary to even attempt to find conclusive evidence.

How convenient.

The mechanism for how mitochondria work was proposed about 20 years before Mitchell managed to find conclusive evidence he was correct. Just saying.

Who says Mitochondria are real? To accept that, you'd have to accept the wacky idea that humans are made up of cells, when we all know men are made of dust from the ground, and women are made from men's rib.

[gm jack]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

Did you actually observe this yourself or are you just copying something you heard or read elsewhere?

Did you observe the world being created 6000 years ago?

I am not an astronomer, and lack access to the millions of pounds of equipment that would be necessary to even attempt to find conclusive evidence.

Oh, just a hypothesis at the moment. HOW CONVENIENT!

The mechanism for how mitochondria work was proposed about 20 years before Mitchell managed to find conclusive evidence he was correct. Just saying.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

Kuiper belt has been observed. The Oort cloud is a scientifically sound explanation in both it's potential origin and function. It is just a hypothesis at the moment, but it is a logical way for them to still be occurring.

Did you actually observe this yourself or are you just copying something you heard or read elsewhere?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

Kuiper belt has been observed. The Oort cloud is a scientifically sound explanation in both it's potential origin and function. It is just a hypothesis at the moment, but it is a logical way for them to still be occurring.

Oh, just a hypothesis at the moment. HOW CONVENIENT!

[gm jack]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

No, I'm sure they must really come from the magical land of Narnia, or is it Oz? Wonderland? Neverland? You can make up all the stuff you want, God still hates you.

Kuiper belt has been observed. The Oort cloud is a scientifically sound explanation in both it's potential origin and function. It is just a hypothesis at the moment, but it is a logical way for them to still be occurring.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

The Kuiper belt is the source of short term comets.

For longer period comets, the most obvious solution would be the hypothesised Oort cloud. However, proving its existence would be very tricky, given that we are looking for non-luminous, comparatively tiny bodies well beyond the solar system.

No, I'm sure they must really come from the magical land of Narnia, or is it Oz? Wonderland? Neverland? You can make up all the stuff you want, God still hates you.

[gm jack]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

Wow, you are quite possibly the stupidest person I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. Congratulations!

It doesn't say that all the animals lived together with Noah, it says God sent the animals to him. READ THE BIBLE! It will protect you from saying stuff like plate tectonics explain why we still have comets if the universe is older than 100,000 years.

The Kuiper belt is the source of short term comets.

For longer period comets, the most obvious solution would be the hypothesised Oort cloud. However, proving its existence would be very tricky, given that we are looking for non-luminous, comparatively tiny bodies well beyond the solar system.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

How incredibly unlikely that one book written several thousand years ago triumphs over the works of men since then. that and they seemed to be under the impression every animal lived within walking distance of Noah's Ark.

Wow, you are quite possibly the stupidest person I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. Congratulations!

It doesn't say that all the animals lived together with Noah, it says God sent the animals to him. READ THE BIBLE! It will protect you from saying stuff like plate tectonics explain why we still have comets if the universe is older than 100,000 years.

[gm jack]

Re: If we came from monkeys, why don't we have tails?

So because my dogs are working dogs it's not cruel? It's the same procedure no matter what kind of home the dog is going to. The surgery is done when they're 2 days old.

Working dogs benefit from it as it can prevent a multitude of injuries and infections. The rest have it done for aesthetics.

Yeah, you may want to go back to your text books. It's a pretty common fact that you can develop a distinct breed that will breed true to its traits in 7 generations. I'm right, but I'm not right. make up your mind.

Provided you have a population form which to develop the breed.

Most dogs nowadays are either a distinct breed or mongrels. There is very little in between of an area where the dogs are beginning to show certain characteristics, but they are not consistent. Then, you can try and standardise them, and seven generations may well be a good estimate of how long it can take.

However, the characteristics have come from somewhere, so if you don't have animals already with the traits you want, you are going to breeding for a very long time. Standardising a breed isn't that hard, as you tried to describe. Just making one takes a whole lot longer.

So you know nothing about what diseases are common in what breeds? Really, do the world a favour and switch to a degree where you won't be hurting anyone.

That would fall under basic characteristics. Seriously, knowing a small list of the genetic conditions the major breeds are prone to is really quite a simple task. Still, I have currently only been taught about a few as I am still a fair few years off finishing the course. However, all are conditions and dog can get. Learning a line at the end saying "so and so breeds are prone to this" does not take a lot of work.