- Jun 16, 2012
- 9,162
- 23,438
- 1,593
- 38
- Twitter Username
- @Ann_sulu19
- Streamate Username
- Ann_Sulu
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/54402/Ann_Sulu/
AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
Things Members Say That Make You Go "WTF?"
- Thread starter Bocefish
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
Ah! That sounds like what it was then. Does it not allow you to ban anyone during that 90 seconds?Chellelovesu said:
Of course at those last moments, things can sometimes be a little confusing, insofar as no one really has time to explain anything, and she may have merely felt that taking the time to ban would be a wasted since the douche wasn't about to buy into her Gold Show, so he'd be gone as soon as the show started anyway.
A
Anonymous
Guest
^It's just a shame they make it so hard to ban people on Streamate. You've gotta "catch them" quickly enough.^
rootbeered: i wish i knew why foreign girls bums are always so turned inside out
rootbeered: is it the culture, im not hating
:?
rootbeered: is it the culture, im not hating
:?
Inside out bum. :lol: :lol: :lol:LailaBaise said:
I have no idea what he's talking about.
Dogs, as we know them, kind of were "invented". Breeding by humans, and not evolution, is responsible for poodles, retrievers or whatever being the way they are. If you have a dog as a pet, there is zero chance that it is not a descendant of a purpose-bred animal. Even many wild dogs are descendants of purpose-bred animals.Godiva420 said:So, anyone else know that someone invented dogs? Because, I totally didn't. I swear you learn something new everyday in VoodooxChild's room.
LailaBaise said:
mmmmm turn bum inside out like a sock bb mmmmm
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
That's one of those discussions that could go on endlessly. Dogs, whether wild or domestic evolved from non-dog species. Domestication, I suppose you could call invention, but they remain dogs, and like you said, historically, they have returned to the wild on occasion...like dingoes, e.g.Sevrin said:Dogs, as we know them, kind of were "invented". Breeding by humans, and not evolution, is responsible for poodles, retrievers or whatever being the way they are. If you have a dog as a pet, there is zero chance that it is not a descendant of a purpose-bred animal. Even many wild dogs are descendants of purpose-bred animals.Godiva420 said:So, anyone else know that someone invented dogs? Because, I totally didn't. I swear you learn something new everyday in VoodooxChild's room.
But either way, it's nit-picking.
Plus changing a race's characteristics through breeding, whether it be man influenced or by nature, is still evolution. It's just defined as a gradual change in a species, doesn't matter what the impetus of change was.Nordling said:That's one of those discussions that could go on endlessly. Dogs, whether wild or domestic evolved from non-dog species. Domestication, I suppose you could call invention, but they remain dogs, and like you said, historically, they have returned to the wild on occasion...like dingoes, e.g.Sevrin said:Dogs, as we know them, kind of were "invented". Breeding by humans, and not evolution, is responsible for poodles, retrievers or whatever being the way they are. If you have a dog as a pet, there is zero chance that it is not a descendant of a purpose-bred animal. Even many wild dogs are descendants of purpose-bred animals.Godiva420 said:So, anyone else know that someone invented dogs? Because, I totally didn't. I swear you learn something new everyday in VoodooxChild's room.
But either way, it's nit-picking.
Interestingly enough there's been theories put forward that the original evolution of wild animal to domestic dog was actually man influenced evolution too, NOT the long involved process of natural selection as most think it was. Rather a fast change, within generations only. It suggests garbage pits may have caused it to start.
The study looked at a breeding program in, i believe Russia, that was dealing with wild fox's. They only allowed animals to breed based on 'friendliness.' They stuck their hand in a cage and if the fox reached forward to nuzzle and lick it was considered sociable and allowed to breed. The ones that cowered at the back of the cage afraid of the people were not. Within just a few short generations of fox they were domesticated. Showed them running around outside their cages. Playing with people, allowed inside buildings. Basically pets.
But the transformation went further. Their build and fur colors changed too.
They showed by selectively breeding for friendlier, inquisitive and sociable attributes they were able to evolve the fox's rapidly.
So they put forth the theory that ancient man as he was becoming more civilized and transforming from nomadic hunter to a more cultivating lifestyle would gather in groups and stay in one place. Those places would have areas where garbage would be thrown. Wild wolves would scour the leavings for food but the scared ones, not sociable, would be scared off more easily. They friendlier ones would stay around to thrive more from the pickings. So those animals would tend to breed together more thus accelerating their evolution into a more docile breed that was use to humans coming and going.
It was an interesting show.
Edit: i'm not going back to edit all this. But I found the wiki on it. They were Silver Foxes. The program is still running today since 1959.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
Oh, no question that artificial evolution is more efficient, insofar as how many generations to make changes, but that's not really the question. The question or argument in the chat room was "did man invent dogs." The answer is no, because dogs already existed, they were simply wolves or wild dogs. What man "invented" or evolved on a local scale were dogs that were suitable to live and work with humans.
And yeah, you could further argue that a new species was created: canis lupus familiaris, but it's not a proper species, but a subspecies of canis lupus (gray wolf). Like I said, the discussion could go on for years. :lol:
And yeah, you could further argue that a new species was created: canis lupus familiaris, but it's not a proper species, but a subspecies of canis lupus (gray wolf). Like I said, the discussion could go on for years. :lol:
- Jun 16, 2012
- 9,162
- 23,438
- 1,593
- 38
- Twitter Username
- @Ann_sulu19
- Streamate Username
- Ann_Sulu
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/54402/Ann_Sulu/
Lol you guys are funny. I don't want to nit-pick, but I just want to point out he was saying the animal was the invention, not the breed. Then again he also might have meant the position was a good invention, but either way it was so poorly put together, I can't make tails or snouts of it. 
You can't "evolve" a species. It's an intransitive verb. Something evolves on its own, or it doesn't. Selective breeding and evolution have nothing to do with one another.JerryBoBerry said:
JamesLovesLilah: her boobs are sexy, but would they provide enough nutirents for healthy childrens?
Your lack of experience with the english language continues to amuse me. As does your repeated nitpicking about silly things that have nothing to do with the subject.Sevrin said:
As for your idea that selective breeding has nothing to do with evolution...WHAT??? Selective breeding pretty much defines evolution. Seriously, I don't even know where to begin with that stupidity.
In the example i cited they were able to change a breed's size, skull dimensions, demeanor, and color of coat in a mere few generations. That is evolution. Disagree and you should just go take a basic biology course. Wow.
Hell, here's a few more examples of man causing evolution in our lifetime. Have fun.
http://grist.org/list/2011-05-05-how-hu ... to-evolve/
And if the point of your post was simply the grammar of using the word 'evolve' then quit being an ass already. It gets tiring trying to have a conversation without some nitpicker waiting to pounce.
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
Ok, let's quit with the ad hominem stuff already .
It's a verbal argument, it doesn't deal with facts but with words and how we define them.
"Evolution" can be defined as a NATURAL process which precludes artificial breeding techniques. Humans selecting for certain traits while breeding another species can be called "un-natural"... or not.
The discussion, as it arose from some silly chat room blather, isn't really important enough to get all hot under the collar about. And this is when I invoke Godwin's Law.
"Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with evolution OR Darwin, but by implying that it did caused a lot of pain, suffering, death and horrors to occur in the 1930s and 40s.
Animal breeding has nothing to do with "natural selection" for individuals best suited for a particular environment during a particular era in a particular locale. But that's the scientific use of the word "evolution." "To evolve" can have a lot of looser definitions, but to mix definitions is what causes arguments.
None of it is necessary.
.It's a verbal argument, it doesn't deal with facts but with words and how we define them.
"Evolution" can be defined as a NATURAL process which precludes artificial breeding techniques. Humans selecting for certain traits while breeding another species can be called "un-natural"... or not.
The discussion, as it arose from some silly chat room blather, isn't really important enough to get all hot under the collar about. And this is when I invoke Godwin's Law.
"Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with evolution OR Darwin, but by implying that it did caused a lot of pain, suffering, death and horrors to occur in the 1930s and 40s.
Animal breeding has nothing to do with "natural selection" for individuals best suited for a particular environment during a particular era in a particular locale. But that's the scientific use of the word "evolution." "To evolve" can have a lot of looser definitions, but to mix definitions is what causes arguments.
None of it is necessary.
I use the same invocation of Godwin's law whenever people start to get all uppity about how peaceful and reasonable atheists are.
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
Even as an atheist, I can't really argue with that. People are warlike or peaceful because of their innate character, not what their personal philosophy, religion or lack thereof is.zippypinhead said:
PlayboyMegan said:
This is a question that demands an answer...you know, for science and stuff.
- Sep 15, 2013
- 156
- 464
- 31
Godiva420 said:
I'm sorry for starting a semi-controversial conversation lmao. Didn't mean it.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 9,162
- 23,438
- 1,593
- 38
- Twitter Username
- @Ann_sulu19
- Streamate Username
- Ann_Sulu
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/54402/Ann_Sulu/
- Sep 15, 2013
- 156
- 464
- 31
Godiva420 said:voodooxchild said:
As you should be jk...now to change the subject this Voodoo...explain. Oh and explain drunk on pineapple juice.
This is in the members side bc she wasn't on cam. That's my excuse.
I got drunk on pineapple juice! You drink a lot of it and get all sugar high and start boucing and say things like "calculators are the vibrators of the math world".....I think I broke the world.
Any plant ever used by humans, or animals raised by humans for any purpose, have been artificially selected whether by design or the use to which the animal or plant is put.Sevrin said:Dogs, as we know them, kind of were "invented". Breeding by humans, and not evolution, is responsible for poodles, retrievers or whatever being the way they are. If you have a dog as a pet, there is zero chance that it is not a descendant of a purpose-bred animal. Even many wild dogs are descendants of purpose-bred animals.Godiva420 said:So, anyone else know that someone invented dogs? Because, I totally didn't. I swear you learn something new everyday in VoodooxChild's room.
Anyone who's ever pulled out a weed is selecting species/traits.
Jupiter551 said:
Oh sure, but there would be dandelions around whether you pulled them out or didn't. There would even be horses if no one rode them or had them pulling wagons. There would not be dogs as we know them at all without selective breeding of what originally looked like wolves by humans. They're not alone, either. Cattle are another example of a species bred into something that looks little like their forebears. There are wild roses, but they don't look a lot like the kind of rose most people think of when they're ordering a dozen over the phone. They did not "evolve" into something that would look nicer as a buttonhole adornment in order to increase their chance to flourish or survive in a changed environment, which are what drives evolution.
kyle1234576: and who knows u might fall in love w/ me if u see me..lol
I could. I could also grow a dick. Both are highly unlikely.
I could. I could also grow a dick. Both are highly unlikely.
Similar threads
- Locked
