forsit Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 A wolf is a dog, but a dog is not a wolf. It's that simple. Jesus Christ. Next subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Canidae is the family of dogs and other related animals (such as wolves), not strictly dogs. Noone argued that marine mammals aren't descended from four legged mammals. We said they didn't descend from dogs, because they didn't DAO is gunna take this post and run another 30 pages haha. I'm goin to sleep A wolf IIISSSSSSSSS a fucking dog you thick headed fuck. You're confusing domesticated pet dogs as being the only type of "dog" on the planet. The shit don't have to be named Fluffy to be a fucking dog. :dunce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEVEL 75 PALADIN Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 RETART Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 "basically" the same, but not the same. That's the key. Just like humans and chimps are "basically" the same. There's that pesky 0.1% genetic difference that makes them not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 And you noticed that you misspelled retard, because you changed that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEVEL 75 PALADIN Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 before after backpedaling.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Does everyone outside of 12oz know that Scandinavia is outside of Europe? I notice you keep avoiding the fact that you said Scandinavia is outside of Europe. :lol: What about alcohol being a depressant? Were all the text books and rehab centers that say alcohol is a depressant -- are all of them within 12oz? Scandinavia is a section of Europe. I misspoke and said something about it being seperate ONCE, then realized that I was drunk and admitted that I was wrong. I love how you're so desperate about being wrong on this that you feel the need to bring that up. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. It also doesn't change the fact that you're a fucking idiot who thinks that wolves are not dogs. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@ndomH3ro Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 hippos are closely related to whales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 hippos are closely related to whales But they're not whales. Nor do they look like, act like even remotely resemble whales in the slightest bit. And if a hippo went into the ocean and fucked a whale, you're not going to see any crossbreed hippowhales as a result. :dunce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spicoli Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 these are dog wolves, sort of... The black fur of some North American wolves is the result of long-ago dalliances with domestic dogs, probably the companions of the earliest Native Americans. And a black coat seems to provide an advantage to forest-dwelling wolves, meaning dogs passed on some useful genetic diversity to their wild cousins. “This is pretty unique,” said biologist Tovi Anderson of Stanford University, lead author of the study published Thursday in Science. “Typically, you’d expect gene flow from domestic to wild animals would not be beneficial.” Anderson and her team compared the genes of wolves from Yellowstone National Park and the Canadian Arctic to those of domestic dogs and coyotes. They found that, in each species, the black individuals have the same mutation, which first arose about 45,000 years ago. And molecular-clock analysis showed the mutation was oldest in dogs, suggesting it originated with them and then spread to wolves and coyotes through interbreeding. This all happened in North America, because there are no black wolves in Europe or Asia (except for an Italian population that has hybridized very recently with dogs). And wolves picked up the black-coat mutation in the distant past, perhaps 12,000-15,000 years ago, when people first crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia. “We don’t see any evidence of recent interbreeding between dogs and North American wolves,” Anderson said. The team also found genetic evidence that the black-fur mutation established itself very quickly in forest-dwelling wolves, meaning it must provide them with some significant advantage. Improved camouflage in the dark woods is one possible explanation. “I think there’s more going on,” said Paul Paquet, a biologist at the University of Calgary who was not involved in the research. Camouflage should not be terribly important to wolves, he said, because they run their prey down rather than ambush it. And, until recent human-led extermination campaigns, wolves have faced little predation pressure. A better immune system may be the answer. The black-fur mutation belongs to a family of genes that, in humans, is involved in fighting off infections. “The advantage we see in wolves could be a result of this immune system function,” Anderson said. “But that’s just a hypothesis.” This hypothesis is complicated by the fact that, while black wolves are common in North American forests, they’re rare on the open tundras. Wildlife biologists noticed this pattern long ago, and the new study further confirms it. If a black coat confers a better immune system, why not be black on the tundra, too? “Perhaps there’s some sort of parasite that’s more prevalent in forested areas,” Anderson said. “One of the next steps is to find out exactly why this mutation is beneficial to wolves, to understand better how it works.” “This is a beautifully conceived and executed study,” Paquet said. “I have considered many of these things previously, and this article made me think about them again.” Paquet said the study also raises interesting questions. Why, for example, haven’t other dog colors worked their way into the wolf wardrobe? And if black wolves do well in woodlands, why are there so few of them in the forests of British Columbia, among the continent’s thickest? The authors suggest that the black-coat mutation may become increasingly important to North American wolves, as much tundra may shift to woodland in a warming world. And the study shows genetic diversity can be found in surprising places. "Adaptation really depends on genetic diversity, especially with the environment changing so rapidly," Paquet said. "Domestic dogs might be a reservoir for resiliency." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/blackwolves/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 before after backpedaling.jpg You fucking edited that yourself you dumb fuck. :dunce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEVEL 75 PALADIN Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 My ass I did. You are the king of editing after you post to make the other posts after it seem out of context. So I screenshot the lulzy ones :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 No, it doesn't, liar. It says dogs' ancestors were wolves. Which is what I've always been saying. Read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 "Dog" specifically refers to the sub-species "canis lupus familiaris". I'm not so sure it does. I am, however, willing to accept your conditional restraints on the term for the purposes of this argument... but I also see DAO is back and, as I said 'not really my argument'. My advice is to focus on the dogs to whales link because most of the rest of the argument can just be bhung up on semantics. PLAYERS! PLAY ON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolling nowhere Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 WOLFS=NOT DOGS -eatso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@ndomH3ro Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 But they're not whales. Nor do they look like, act like even remotely resemble whales in the slightest bit. And if a hippo went into the ocean and fucked a whale, you're not going to see any crossbreed hippowhales as a result. :dunce: and? I dont get why you even typed this out. I was just making a statement about hippos and whales. It really had nothing to do with your conversation with others. take the argue mode off auto pilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEVEL 75 PALADIN Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 You fucking edited that yourself you dumb fuck. :dunce: Also that claim makes no sense seeing that you claim that you spelled it that way on purpose, and your your edited post remains "retards". So try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Also... http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569837/dog_family.html We've posted links to Merriam Webster & PBS stating that wolves are not dogs. Smart is cool, but I don't know why you give extra credibility to his opinions over everyone else's. Is it because he's a mod? Remember, Bojangles said wolves aren't dogs. Did we post his statements 200 times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 "Clearly Maria Shriver is in the same family as JFK, but she's not the same a Kennedy. Clearly Bobby Kennedy's 14 kids are all decendants of the Kenedy's, but some of them are daughters and thus they will mary into another bloodline and so their kids won't even be related to the Kenedy's anymore." :dunce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolling nowhere Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 34 pages of epic lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEVEL 75 PALADIN Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 You are arguing that Bobby Kennedy is John F Kennedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Well Chihuahuas & Great Danes are just different breeds within the same sub-species (dogs). Wolves are in a different sub-species altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Scandinavia is a section of Europe. I misspoke and said something about it being seperate ONCE, then realized that I was drunk and admitted that I was wrong. I love how you're so desperate about being wrong on this that you feel the need to bring that up. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. It also doesn't change the fact that you're a fucking idiot who thinks that wolves are not dogs. :lol: You never admitted you were wrong once about that. You just said Scandinavia wasn't part of Europe, and everytime anyone brought it up, you just stayed silent. not indicating that you had revised your position at all. And I like how in the very, very rare instances where you admit you wrong, you almost always blame it on being "drunk". :lol: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary must be idiots too since they differentiate wolves & dogs. You still haven't refuted what the dictionary said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I'm gonna go ahead and go with theo on this one. -eatso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Me and Theo have been in here handling business (no homo), and you're gunna give him all the credit? Bullshit You and Theo have been royally PWNED and shut the fuck down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheoHuxtable.. Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEVEL 75 PALADIN Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Just spit soda all over my screen. Fuck you theo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Theo, I think you're taking advantage of my beligerent nature... it's still all love but in a sec I'm gonna bail on this or turn into the Hulk... Not quite... let's split some hairs. Wolves are not a 'seperate sub-species'. Dogs are a 'sub-species' of Wolves. Canis lupus vs. canis lupus familiaris... see? So... Let's talk about horses... Obviously an Arabian is different than an Appaloosa, that's a breed issue. Like Chiahuahuas and Gt. Danes. Now let's look at the wild horses of Chincoteague or the western US. They are horses (ponies) right? However, any domesticated horse is a 'familiaris' and all wild horses should be able to shed that portion of the title as wolves do in relation to domesticated dogs. <www.12ozprophet.com> You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 You are arguing that Bobby Kennedy is John F Kennedy. Well, as long as he's not comparing him to Ted Kennedy because that bitch couldn't even drive off a bridge right. (too soon?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRUNKEN-ASSHOLE-ONER Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Yes, true -- but we've always said that dogs did come from wolves. And, according to the breeder where I got my dogs, said "Dogs could be considered a domesticated form of wolf". But a wolf can't be considered a "dog". "Dog" specifically refers to the sub-species "canis lupus familiaris". And I worded the sub-species thing incorrectly earlier...still, the point is the taxonomy separates dogs from wolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.