[quote1326920951=LeeRobinson] [quote1326850741=Tonedog] You are being pretty annoying lee... your view is definitely one at odds with modern research and the new wave of advancements in understanding dogs, so some humility at least would seem appropriate. Your argument is old as hell and I for one am so confident it's wrong it's hard to even bother talking about it, feels like taking a step backwards. You seem to have irrational fear and/or disrespect for the scientific community, are you a creationist by any chance? On my end the discussion can just cease now if you are. If you haven't been convinced by the bulk of evidence for evolution I'm sure as hell not going to match that in quantity, I sincerely doubt anything could topple your wall of resistance if this is the case. If not I apologise. I just see some of what are usually tell-tale signs of a professional agenda-driven reality-denier. [/quote1326850741] This entire post is a personal attack, and I take offense to it. The fact that you are a moderator on the forum is EXACTLY WHY you should refrain from such low life behavior. Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic...and is harassing in nature...and it does NOT do honor your friend Gary, the board owner the respect or professionalism he deserves on his forum. [/quote1326920951] Well that's a huge overreaction... if you genuinely feel that offended, I apologise. But your argumentation in this thread, on this topic, is kind of annoying to me. I'm just noting for your benefit that it's kind of making me feel annoyed/frustrated, and I have little doubt astibus as well, and anyone following who happens to share this particular perspective that is starting to develop in accordance with modern science and research. Is that your goal? If not I would think you'd actually want to know, I would. You're just making it very clear you will resist what is being said if it is at all possible. "You can't prove I'm wrong 100% so there, I win" sort of attitude, which I find perplexing given the topic at hand. You see this kind of attitude and strategy employed by creationists who have their obvious agenda to stick to their view at all costs. What is your agenda? I don't know, but I don't feel it productive to have this style of debate, well ever, but definitely not on a topic like this where we're trying to progress to a new more accurate understanding and drift away from old antiquated views. This can be difficult at the best of times because so much of common perception is built around the old way of thinking, and then on top of that you're purposefully digging your heels in to keep us there and it's just not helpful at all and mega frustrating. And the big question of "why?" just keeps popping up in my head. Astibus' last post said everything I want to say basically about the actual issue, and we're not in "kahoots" we've just obviously come to understand the same thing. Basically yeah man's hand has been involved, to varying degrees depending on strains, but it's not helpful or accurate to suggest this changes it at a fundamental from natural selection. Humans are just apes and so in their mutual relationship with canids they represent another factor or even hazard in the natural selection of dogs. Things have changed very very recently for SOME strains where man has consciously completely taken control, and I think then it's safe to start calling it "artificial selection". The concept of purebreeding is to me synonymous with artificial selection, that represents when man became the god of certain dog strains. It only happened in some circles when man became detached from nature, from needing dogs, and had the luxury and free time to take up dog breeding as a hobby. That's when genuine artificial selection came to be, in my perspective. As in something fundamentally different to natural selection. The breeding of working dogs I would say still is more in line with natural selection, than it is artificial selection. EVEN if the human does pair dogs together. At best this is replacing "sexual selection", taking that away from the dogs. This happens in natural social units of baboons, mole rats and even wolves anyway, where the leaders of the pack/troop/whatever dictate who breeds. This doesn't fundamentally bring down the fabric of natural selection and turn it into something else. The dogs still are required by nature to survive and thrive within a social unit they share with hominids. The human/dog relationship, while unique in many respects (and wonderfully so), is still fundamentally in line with being a natural social unit of living organisms. Arguably always, even when old ladies are breeding pekingese for fun or whatever, but if there's a line to be drawn it is where humans start consciously creating a "breed" for it's own sake. The emergence of kennel clubs and purebreeding, and also the emergence of man designing dogs with the intent of creating this or that. Is really when things started to change on a meaningful level. Before that man wasn't the director or manager, but rather just a pressure, and occasional hazard. Basically man started believing the myth of him knowingly creating dogs, and thought he'd continue the "tradition", and thought they could just be stewed up in a pot, having no understanding of the reality that nature was really in control all that time making all those dogs, and that's precisely when some dogs started going to sh!t with countless genetic health conditions and deformities and etc etc. Because their god was now an ape, and while apes are clever, they're ultimately just beasts and creating lifeforms is a bit beyond their capacity.