Best view of the fight AJ Francis perfect power right hand.

[Roadblock]

Damn...AJ put everything into that shot. And that's as good as it gets!!!

As for natural selection. Its evolution in action. That's the process.

Artificial selection can be de-evolution if the organisms can't survive in the wild because your selecting against nature left to its own devices.

If the human effected organism can survive in a natural environment devoid of human assistance, i suppose you could call it re-evolution.

What domestic animal can't survive in the wild? Very few only those bred for novelty, and there is countless proof of feral species ranging from cattle to cats and dogs, reptiles you name it it can survive in the wild, especially so if they were developed for physical attributes such as hunting dogs. We know evolution is the process lol, the subject matter is what is that process in the context of selecting breeders, and how breeders copy that process in creating new breeds which are all hybrids developed from animals made by Nature, breeders are only rearranging the genes that are there, thats the only change, every cell has its origins from Nature, man is just redirecting a path for his own purpose.

Lots of experts in here that have no practical experience in what they profess to know, its as if they just want to argue some mute point of phrasing that's doesn't mean anything in the context of whats being said.

[Quercusalba]

You took in nothing, answered nothing and continued a mute point.

Natural selection is not a item it is a process that follows the rules of the universe, breeders of performance animals follow the very same rules in producing better performance just as Nature uses her tests to produce better performing survivors, the only difference is Nature hovers around average of the gene pool which is why it takes so long for change, performance breeders hover around the elite of the gene pool, which is why Man can speed adaption up so fast.

I cant spell this sht out any more basic for you, you are not trying to debate or dispute anything Ive said to you, you cannot answer anything put to you, all you are doing is acting all nerdy trying to prove a mute point, I don't know if its because of comprehension but I suspect that as you answered my last post in a few minutes absorbing nothing that was said.

The point is Natural selection is a PROCESS, and performance breeders follow that PROCESS, let that

Hey there Jimmy the Greek. I've kept you waiting, but hopefully it gave you time to muck out the kennels.

Mute point? That isn't a thing. I'm pointing this out to you, but my efforts are probably moot.

Directly answering an opponent's question is a good way to lose an argument.

Observe...

Challenger: Why is crime in our city so high? It's out of control.

Incumbent: Crime is so high because, etc. --- incumbent in answering this question directly just conceded their opponents point.

Observe again...

Candidate: Why is crime in our city so high? It's out of control

Incumbent: Crime is a problem all major cities are confronted with. In the last four years, we've introduced initiatives, etc. --- addressed crime, but did not concede it being high or out of control.

You want me to give you the definition of prepotency? What would be the point of that and what in the world would it prove? Maybe I knew, and maybe I didn't. I could have given you the definition and you could have just assumed I looked it up. We're hiding behind keyboards here. Do you know what the capital of Bulgaria is? Did you, before this evening, know what an aurochs is? I'm assuming you didn't, but it doesn't matter.

One can refute another's points with out directly answering their questions.

Natural selection is a process. It is an impartial process. Nature is impartial. Selective breeding/artificial selection is also a process. It is a partial process. Breeders are partial. I'll say it again. Natural selection is a process governed by impartiality. Breeding is a process governed by partiality. Yes. They are both processes, but they are fundamentally opposite. One cannot introduce impartiality into a partial system because one's attempts at impartiality would be influenced by just how and why they wish to be impartial making these attempts inherently partial.

[pollywog]

We know evolution is the process lol, the subject matter is what is that process in the context of selecting breeders, and how breeders copy that process...blah blah blah

That process - as i mentioned in my oh so worthless opinion - is de-evolution ; going backwards or re-evolution; creating new species.

[Roadblock]

Hey there Jimmy the Greek. I've kept you waiting, but hopefully it gave you time to muck out the kennels.

Mute point? That isn't a thing. I'm pointing this out to you, but my efforts are probably moot.

Directly answering an opponent's question is a good way to lose an argument.

Observe...

Challenger: Why is crime in our city so high? It's out of control.

Incumbent: Crime is so high because, etc. --- incumbent in answering this question directly just conceded their opponents point.

Observe again...

Candidate: Why is crime in our city so high? It's out of control

Incumbent: Crime is a problem all major cities are confronted with. In the last four years, we've introduced initiatives, etc. --- addressed crime, but did not concede it being high or out of control.

You want me to give you the definition of prepotency? What would be the point of that and what in the world would it prove? Maybe I knew, and maybe I didn't. I could have given you the definition and you could have just assumed I looked it up. We're hiding behind keyboards here. Do you know what the capital of Bulgaria is? Did you, before this evening, know what an aurochs is? I'm assuming you didn't, but it doesn't matter.

One can refute another's points with out directly answering their questions.

Natural selection is a process. It is an impartial process. Nature is impartial. Selective breeding/artificial selection is also a process. It is a partial process. Breeders are partial. I'll say it again. Natural selection is a process governed by impartiality. Breeding is a process governed by partiality. Yes. They are both processes, but they are fundamentally opposite. One cannot introduce impartiality into a partial system because one's attempts at impartiality would be influenced by just how and why they wish to be impartial making these attempts inherently partial.

What a lame ass response fck me.

Directly answering a question is polite in any conversation normal people don't have an issue with it I've never lost a debate about a subject I know by answering questions, I don't dig in on sht I know little about, I can tell you the same stuff here from 20 different angles because I understand it, Im not an opponent Im a guy talking to you, I know what I know and I know what you don't know because of that, this is a subject Ive studied and practised for 50 yrs, Ive created a pure breed of dog in doing that I studied Nature and the best performance breeders in history, everything from the fox farm experiments to the Jax mice to the King Ranch, you know nothing about this, fkn nothing.

The point of prepotency is that it is the key that sets traits and type stemming from the prepotency of the parents where one parent influences the offspring more than the other parent ultimately effecting the direction of the breed species or strain, prepotency is not dominant and recessive genes, what it means is the degree of influence on any particular individual takes on from its inheritance, why it matters in this conversation is because we are talking about Natural selection right, you don't understand the link do you lol.

So now you say Natural selection is impartial, well that's a crock of horse sht lol , Natural selection is the act of the best survivors passing on their genes, there is nothing impartial about it. the best survivors must pass the tests to become the best survivors this is how Nature weeds out the rubbish. It is extremely selective in its process, Nature is so impartial its kills its failures, lol God Dam youre spinning some sht.

Get back to some books to try and win a debate in a forum on a subject you know nothing about, way to go buddy I will drown you on this subject which is why you cannot answer anything because you have no understanding of it at all, no experience no nothing, all the books in the world cannot and will not prove your point because you are so wrong its not funny.

Youre name calling and smart ass mouth doesn't hide your BS.

I noticed your quote "When smart people do dumb things, it's usually due to one of two things. The two things are greed and fear."

- Cormac McCarthy , well there is a third reason that's when people try to be what they are not, the proverbial big noter, put them on the spot and they become as dumb as rocks and spit out rubbish like little kids .

[Roadblock]

That process - as i mentioned in my oh so worthless opinion - is de-evolution ; going backwards or re-evolution; creating new species.

Why did you pick that to quote I wasn't having a go at you I know you don't get it, I was curious in your comment that man made breeds can't survive in the wild which is 99% wrong, only novelty breeds would have trouble, breeds that cant run cant breath cant do anything but sit on the couch, all the others have no problems at all returning to the wild, after all that's where they all originally come from.

[Quercusalba]

What a lame ass response fck me.

Directly answering a question is polite in any conversation normal people don't have an issue with it I've never lost a debate about a subject I know by answering questions, I don't dig in on sht I know little about, I can tell you the same stuff here from 20 different angles because I understand it, Im not an opponent Im a guy talking to you, I know what I know and I know what you don't know because of that, this is a subject Ive studied and practised for 50 yrs, Ive created a pure breed of dog in doing that I studied Nature and the best performance breeders in history, everything from the fox farm experiments to the Jax mice to the King Ranch, you know nothing about this, fkn nothing.

The point of prepotency is that it is the key that sets traits and type stemming from the prepotency of the parents where one parent influences the offspring more than the other parent ultimately effecting the direction of the breed species or strain, prepotency is not dominant and recessive genes, what it means is the degree of influence on any particular individual takes on from its inheritance, why it matters in this conversation is because we are talking about Natural selection right, you don't understand the link do you lol.

So now you say Natural selection is impartial, well that's a crock of horse sht lol , Natural selection is the act of the best survivors passing on their genes, there is nothing impartial about it. the best survivors must pass the tests to become the best survivors this is how Nature weeds out the rubbish. It is extremely selective in its process, Nature is so impartial its kills its failures, lol God Dam youre spinning some sht.

Get back to some books to try and win a debate in a forum on a subject you know nothing about, way to go buddy I will drown you on this subject which is why you cannot answer anything because you have no understanding of it at all, no experience no nothing, all the books in the world cannot and will not prove your point because you are so wrong its not funny.

Youre name calling and smart ass mouth doesn't hide your BS.

I noticed your quote "When smart people do dumb things, it's usually due to one of two things. The two things are greed and fear."

- Cormac McCarthy , well there is a third reason that's when people try to be what they are not, the proverbial big noter, put them on the spot and they become as dumb as rocks and spit out rubbish like little kids .

You haven't drowned me in anything. You continue to try to hammer home your view of things which is right in your head but wrong in mine.

Of course natural selection is impartial. It is impartial by definition to its vary core. Yes, it is weeding out the 'fittest', but there is no thought or consideration, only impartiality. The KT extinction was a random event. It wasn't an experiment. There was no partial outside hand at play. When that meteorite slammed into the earth in what is now the Yucatan, every living thing was subject to its aftermath equally. That's impartiality. That's nature. This impartial event naturally and fairly selected for mammals and against sauropods, among other creatures. To suggest nature and by extension natural selection is anything but impartial is to suggest a power beyond nature pulling the strings. It is to suggest a watchmaker.

You've created a breed of dog. That's very neat (seriously, I'm not being condescending), but it isn't you playing the role of nature. It is you playing the role of 'god'. Nature didn't say, "I want a cat with stripes. World, give me a tiger." It happened naturally and impartially over millions of years. Breeders decided they wanted a cat with tiny legs and made the abomination that is the Munchkin; a creature that would never exist when subject to the impartial forces of nature.

I know about the silver fox breeding program in Russia. Very interesting stuff. If I remember correctly they selected for behavior (docility, tameness) but started getting physical changes. It was, however, humans picking which foxes bred, and those scientists may have been sub-consciously selecting 'cuter' more 'appealing' looking foxes and therefore selecting for both behavior and (inadvertently) appearance. Also, the foxes weren't 'wild' to begin with. They were from a fur farm in Canada.

I used to live in Houston so I know through osmosis the King Ranch created their own breed of cattle adapted to the conditions of south Texas.

I don't know about the mice.

Hey, I did you a favor with the moot point thing. Now you know the proper phrasing and are all the wiser for it.

You're the one cursing all over the place and I'm the one spitting out rubbish like a kid? Yeesh.

[QueensburyRules]

Excellent view here, if you slow it down under the cog settings playback speed I doubt you can hit somebody harder its just perfect with full set-up delivery and follow-through i doubt there is a HW that could take that shot, Francis was in shock after the first KD.

- - Blubber still in shock...R.I.P...

[Roadblock]

You haven't drowned me in anything. You continue to try to hammer home your view of things which is right in your head but wrong in mine.

Of course natural selection is impartial. It is impartial by definition to its vary core. Yes, it is weeding out the 'fittest', but there is no thought or consideration, only impartiality. The KT extinction was a random event. It wasn't an experiment. There was no partial outside hand at play. When that meteorite slammed into the earth in what is now the Yucatan, every living thing was subject to its aftermath equally. That's impartiality. That's nature. This impartial event naturally and fairly selected for mammals and against sauropods, among other creatures. To suggest nature and by extension natural selection is anything but impartial is to suggest a power beyond nature pulling the strings. It is to suggest a watchmaker.

You've created a breed of dog. That's very neat (seriously, I'm not being condescending), but it isn't you playing the role of nature. It is you playing the role of 'god'. Nature didn't say, "I want a cat with stripes. World, give me a tiger." It happened naturally and impartially over millions of years. Breeders decided they wanted a cat with tiny legs and made the abomination that is the Munchkin; a creature that would never exist when subject to the impartial forces of nature.

I know about the silver fox breeding program in Russia. Very interesting stuff. If I remember correctly they selected for behavior (docility, tameness) but started getting physical changes. It was, however, humans picking which foxes bred, and those scientists may have been sub-consciously selecting 'cuter' more 'appealing' looking foxes and therefore selecting for both behavior and (inadvertently) appearance. Also, the foxes weren't 'wild' to begin with. They were from a fur farm in Canada.

I used to live in Houston so I know through osmosis the King Ranch created their own breed of cattle adapted to the conditions of south Texas.

I don't know about the mice.

Hey, I did you a favor with the moot point thing. Now you know the proper phrasing and are all the wiser for it.

You're the one cursing all over the place and I'm the one spitting out rubbish like a kid? Yeesh.

The King Ranch was famous for the quarter horse.

The Jax mice is years of breeding for lab mice, they did things like 1000s of generations of brother sister breedings to get as close to clones as possible, its all very instrumental in looking at inbreeding thier papers were great reading for breeders of anything. And why its important in the big picture is because Nature inbred everything if you believe it all just started from two which I do.
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Media...dized-Mice.pdf

You seem to have a real hard time understanding that Natural selection is a process that is very selective, it is not impartial which suggests by definition any stock are breeders which is not the way it works, you are dead wrong. The definition of impartial is to treat all equally, Natural selection does not do that, it kills the weak and breeds on with the strongest, what you are babbling on about impartial selection is total BS, you cant be any more wrong, Look at showbred purebred dogs not tested for anything and bred by people with complete impartiality and those breeds a fckd full of genetic issues and they blame inbreeding which is not the issue inbreeding the wrong one is the cause, poor selections, and you think Nature builds generations willy nilly like this, the breeders Nature uses have been selected on vigor strength and survivability right down to cell level, anybody can understand that impartial selection in the wild is total BS.

The biggest stumbling block that you cant see over is livestock and dogs etc are obviously not the result of Natural selection in the wild although they all come from there originally and Ive never ever said they were, but the methods of selection used are the same selection process of Nature, which is test and then breed the best of the group, its not complicated in its rawest form.

As far as your petty spelling jib goes mute/moot , I have a checker that automatically changes things Ive got to be so careful with it changing words, well anyway it picked up a number of spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes in your post, so leave the petty baby sht out as it only comes across as immature Nerd.

So to wrap up comprehend what Im saying, Natural Selection is a process based around the survival of the fittest/strongest/most vigorous right down to bacteria level to survive the rigors of their environment, and breeders of livestock have used the very same principles of Natural selection in creating breeds, which is what Ive said all along, you seem to be locked in with they weren't in the wild and totally oblivious the process used in the wild in selecting its most adaptable which is a methodology being followed by domestic breeders, its seems to me you are arguing about a word without reading and comprehending the context of what is actually being said, you have not proved anything Ive said is wrong, you just go back to the word like a broken record even though my comment is right, for you its win the word who cares what he means which is the same ol BS in the forum daily and its all because of youth that have never done a thing yet think they know it all, I was talking to somebody else and you pull a post mid stream in conversation and off you go on a word, no comprehension of the content just one or two words that for your own reasons jump out, other than that you don't see the running conversation at all.

A very good paper on Natural selection you might want to read it.

Surveys of students at all levels paint a bleak picture regarding the level of understanding of natural selection. Though it is based on well-established and individually straightforward components, a proper grasp of the mechanism and its implications remains very rare among non-specialists. The unavoidable conclusion is that the vast majority of individuals, including most with postsecondary education in science, lack a basic understanding of how adaptive evolution occurs.


Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating en******, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next.

Impartial lol.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcen...052-009-0128-1