[quote1326829882=Astibus] That is a geek's attempt at a joke! His field is called THEORETICAL PHYSICS ... as historically there has ALWAYS been a rivalry between Theoretical Physics and APPLIED PHYSICS. [/quote1326829882] I understand that...but that is why I mentioned it. Joke...or actually ironic truths?..or perhaps both. [quote] So if scientific reputations don't have any weight in their field, then that would mean that YOU could just come up with a counter theory to Hawking's and they would be equally legitimate? I didn't think so. [/quote] It would depend upon the DATA. We need to give the BEST theories the credit they are due. Einstein was a patent clerk from 1902-1907 was he not?...yet, his studies and research rivaled the field at that time...in fact, ahead of his time. Perhaps because he was willing to step out of the box to consider the bigger picture. Titles are great...but they need to be kept in their perspective. Data and truth trumps titles alone. [quote] The same goes for your view on the canine matter at hand versus the explanations of world reknown scientists in Biology and Anthropology. (Both of which btw aren't theoretical but predominantly based on observation and study of hard data) [/quote] Parts of such are factual, but parts are indeed theoretical. As mentioned, we are not god's yet...and we do not have mental telepathy with animals that are here...much less ones that are long gone. So, we look at the facts (factual) but then guess about the holes (theoretical) in order to fill the gaps. The best theories/guesses are the ones that look at the entire picture in order to keep things (the data) in its proper perspective to the larger idea. [quote] [quote1326824897=LeeRobinson] Dog's certainly offered their relationship with humans to some degree...but that really has nothing to do SPECIFICALLY with the LGD alone... [/quote1326824897] Of course not! Nobody ever stated that this had to do "SPECIFICALLY with the LGD alone". The LGD is NOT the ancestor of all working breeds. NEITHER is it the reason why we have domesticated dogs today. We are talking about one branch in the early evolution of dogs. One branch. [/quote] Referring to dogs offering a relationship is NOT the same as offering the ability to heard livestock without reward. If there is reward based upon task completion, that alone would designate artificial selection. [quote] Anyways, I am admittedly growing tired of this argument. So let's declare that you are right and Coppinger et al as well as geneticists and anthropologists are all wrong. "For it is" the shortcoated dog and our god-given power to artificially mold canines into whatever we desire that created robot dogs strictly following their prey-fight-rank program. Oh yeah, and Americans are naturally the best at this. Amen. [/quote] Reverting to nonsense doesn't help your argument/point of view. Truth can withstand scrutiny...regardless. That said, Einstein stated, "Great minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Your sarcasm is just that...sarcasm...and is off topic. People that use sarcasm resort to such as a redirection of the topic typically due to frustration...and they do so when they are unable to endure intelligent discussion from objective parties. If you want to discuss the topic...cool. If not...that's cool too. It makes no difference to me...but the truth doesn't have to run and hide from questioning or resort to sarcasm. Doing so projects a weakness in your argument/point of view. Meanwhile, I'm not upset in the least...and if you wish to move on for the purpose of saying it is time to agree to disagree...that makes sense...but sarcasm and comments like "you're overly detail obsessed responses sometimes..." well, that is just nonsense...and of course pointless. As far as Coppinger goes...I don't believe Coppinger is the only one that has offered opinions on the process of natural selection vs artificial selection. In fact, I know he is not the only one. His conclusions and theories may have some evidence, but since no one can go back thousands of years ago and actually observe what happened in a factual manner...ultimately, your acceptance of his view/conclusions/theories is one of faith since direct observational evidence from the time of the LGD's development is lacking. In closing, let me say one final thing. [u]It's all good. If you are ever in my neck of the woods...however unlikely it may be...you are welcome to stop by for a visit. I consider you an intelligent guy with different opinions or beliefs than my own. [/u] Of course, I think you're a bit mislead by biased teachings...but so what. I have pointed out many HOLES in your view, yet you haven't pointed out a single flaw in my view, but again...so what. If you wish to change your mind, cool. If you change my mind, cool. Hopefully, we will both be students until we die. Until then though, I will seek the truth or defend what I know is true the best I know how...and when someone comes along that knows more truth than I do...well, I will be able to see such truths as they are presented objectively...and not because "I said so." I am sure you can understand that. God bless.