Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 76595

[in a list of alleged counterexamples to an old earth]

6.The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Conservapedia, Conservapedia article: "Counterexamples to an Old Earth" 68 Comments [10/6/2010 3:19:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 88
Submitted By: Doctor Whom
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
LC

I don't know much about dogs but...pure breeds aren't exactly natural, are they?

10/6/2010 3:36:43 AM

ApeGirl

I just don't even know where to start with this!
OK, try this:
1) 'pure-bred' dogs are NOT 'natural' they were (and still are) created by humans through artificial selection.
2) The breeds are maintained because people called 'dog breeders' chose very carefully which dogs they allow to mate.
3) That's what 'breed' means you unbelievable dufus.
4) like all mammals the natural ancestors of modern dog breeds are relatively recent in evolutionary terms. The breeds themselves VERY VERY recent.
5) You should think a bit more about dog breeds, they are a nice example of how selective pressures (in this case artificial, but same works for natural) produce extremely different animals quite quickly.

10/6/2010 3:38:48 AM

WMDKitty

Yep, natural, pure breeds... designed by MAN!

10/6/2010 3:47:15 AM

Swede

Yeah, because all dogs are racists (breedists) and will naturally only mate with their own breed.
Way to contradict yourself there with "dogs naturally crossbreed". Then where the hell do the pure-breeds come from?

The pure breeds increase with time, Dummkopf!

10/6/2010 3:57:27 AM

ApeGirl

"#1215187
Swede

Yeah, because all dogs are racists (breedists) and will naturally only mate with their own breed.
Way to contradict yourself there with "dogs naturally crossbreed". Then where the hell do the pure-breeds come from?

The pure breeds increase with time, Dummkopf! "

What?

10/6/2010 4:02:09 AM

Fedup

My purebred peek-a-poo says you're an idiot

10/6/2010 4:03:47 AM

Percy Q. Shunn

Yep; there's nothing more natural than selective breeding.

10/6/2010 4:06:23 AM



People nearly breed dogs to the point of artificially inseminating them so it sure is natural.

10/6/2010 4:33:07 AM

None

Hey FedUp.....there's no such breed a a peek-a-poo. You have a badly bred mutt with a fancy name.

And there's purebreds that aren't "very very recent".
Just from the top of my head:

Saluki, Chow Chow, Shar-Pei, Basenji, Akita Inu...all ancient dog breeds.









10/6/2010 4:33:20 AM

The L

But controlled inbreeding creates new dog breeds all the time, nincompoop. Just ask the AKC; they have all the information you could ever possibly want on dog breeds, and then some.

10/6/2010 4:33:26 AM

TGrwulf

First off, way to contradict yourself.

Also, LC, yes, purebred dogs aren't natural as they've been selected for certain traits and only bred with dogs that their owners see fit.

EDIT: Damnit beaten to it several times over!

Also, purebred dogs, because of all the inbreeding, unlike mutts, have high chances of getting things like Collie Eye Syndrom or Degenerative Mylopathy(sp?) (which is basically MS for german shepards) and so forth.

10/6/2010 4:55:23 AM

Mister Spak

6.The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs increases over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are only 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.

Therefore the earth is only 6000 years old.

10/6/2010 5:02:55 AM

Rough Knight

Another example from the article:

"The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,[12] music, personal letters,[13] quality of political debates,[14] the quality of news articles,[15] or any other measure."

They forgot to mention the existence of Conservapedia.

10/6/2010 5:06:58 AM

Adey

Just visited the "article". I'm not a mathematician but can any one explain the "logic" behind this statement from the beginning of the piece.
"It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of at least 93%."
How can these figures be derived from the mess that follows?

10/6/2010 5:15:16 AM

SleepNeed

From the same article:

5.The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.

You see this pot Andy?:


It's from the Banpo phase in modern China. It's from around 4800 BCE so about 1800 years older than your so called "nothing found older than." and that isn't even the oldest.

You see this mask?:


It's from around 7000 BCE, or 4000 years before 3000 BC. Don't even get me started on the various cave paintings found around the world.

10/6/2010 5:26:16 AM

Thrutch

Have a read of some of the other "Counterexamples"

there's the usual "moon receding from earth" and Grand Canyon whargaarrbbl.

but "The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period" Ignoring the continual formation of rock arches.

and "The lack of erosion between rock layers"

and "The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining"

and "Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species"

To adapt a quote from Blazing Saddles "Ooh, baby, you are so talented! - and they are so ..."

10/6/2010 5:26:18 AM

Kulgur

@Adey

If each example has a 10% chance of being right, then they each have a 90% chance of being wrong. In order for the Earth to be old, ALL of them must be wrong.

The chance of that (assuming their initial assumptions are correct) is 0.9^25 = 0.07, or 7%. As far as I can tell, the math is correct.

Of course, their initial assumptions are wrong, the chance of any of them is FAR less than 10%, and the Earth is actually billions of years old, but apart from that, not bad.

10/6/2010 5:39:17 AM

John_in_Oz

Yeah, and the declining number of languages shows how little time has passed since the Tower of Babel.

Oh shit, I shouldn't have said that, they're bound to add it to the list!

10/6/2010 5:46:52 AM

Canadia

Not natural at all.

10/6/2010 5:48:09 AM

vaiyt

"Bred" already implies human agency. Natural pure-bred dogs do not exist. Next.

10/6/2010 5:48:15 AM

ApeGirl

"None

Hey FedUp.....there's no such breed a a peek-a-poo. You have a badly bred mutt with a fancy name.

And there's purebreds that aren't "very very recent".
Just from the top of my head:

Saluki, Chow Chow, Shar-Pei, Basenji, Akita Inu...all ancient dog breeds."

You think those breeds aren't 'very very recent' in EVOLUTIONARY TERMS??? LOL


10/6/2010 6:14:12 AM

Doubting Thomas

OK so what evidence do you have that at one point in history all dogs were purebred breeds, and at what point in time? How do you know that it didn't take dogs billions of years to crossbreed to the point where they're at today?

And of course this is assuming your argument has merit and doesn't take into consideration the fact that "purebred" dogs were bred by humans for their particular traits.

10/6/2010 6:14:40 AM

GigaGuess

*Sigh*

The only natural pure-bred dogs are wolves and the likes. Dogs themselves were domesticated, and then hand bred for select purposes.

10/6/2010 6:15:54 AM

dionysus

Okay, let's assume your argument is correct. Here are the problems with your argument even then:

1) You're assuming that dogs existed for the entire lifespan of the Earth.

2) You never demonstrated how many breeds of dog ever existed you just claim that there are only 100 so we have no frame of reference to gauge the implications of that number. For example, if I claimed that I had only 7 gallons of fuel left in my vehicle you can't tell whether that's good or bad unless you know what the frame of reference is; there's a huge difference between me talking about a Dodge Challenger having that much fuel left and a Boeing 747.

3) You never demonstrated that cross-breeding actually reduces the number of breeds that exist or the rate at which these breeds disappear.

And that's only if I accept, uncritically, everything you just said.

10/6/2010 6:20:51 AM

aaa

Damn. You don't even have a clue how dogs work. I wish this was satire, but it's more of an argument for doom of all mankind.

10/6/2010 6:30:46 AM
1 2 3