Tags for this video have been changed from 'rob, theft, small dog, terrifying, Chihuahua' to 'rob, theft, small dog, terrifying, Chihuahua, hold up' - edited by ctrlaltbleach

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rob, theft, small dog, terrifying' to 'rob, theft, small dog, terrifying, Chihuahua' - edited by ctrlaltbleach

I think it's spelled Chihuahua.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gerbils ferrets cute chihuahua' to 'gerbils, ferrets, cute, chihuahua' - edited by bareboards2

>> ^Drax:

In some ways this is almost valid for the EIA tag.


I will make it valid! *eia

"This is actually somewhat true. If breeds interbreed (derp, thats why they called breeds teehee?) there is very little chance of speciation occurring. Seperate a Great Dane a Chihuahua by a huge expanse of water for long enough though and eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring, or in other words, become a different species."

I don't think it really matters how long you wait or if one of the dogs lives in Alpha Centari..they will still just produce dogs according to the evidence. I suppose you could cook up anything and make it seem real by adding the magic value of millions of years..but without any real evidence its just pie in the sky

"I'd like to see you define a "fully formed" species. Honestly, this really shows how badly you misunderstand evolution. You are a transitional species, we all are, every single living thing on this planet is in some sense transitional. This misunderstanding of evolution seems to stem from the belief that it all happens at once, suddenly one day a bird hatches out of a dinosaur egg. Honey, it don't work like that, its millions of tiny changes from one generation to the next."

Fully formed as in, no true ancestors. There aren't any true ancestors for any of the major groups. There simply is no evidence in the fossil record demonstrating macro evolution which of course is seriously embarassing to darwinian theory. I highly doubt that darwin himself would maintain that his theory was true, just on the basis of the complexity of the cell and the DNA molecule alone.

"I really encourage you to learn more about speciation. It seems you accept that species do mutate to better survive, but you don't believe that results in them forming a whole new species. Thats quite a reasonable position to take but there is plenty of evidence explaining how speciation actually occurs. Gogo read up on it, its fascinating."

I will check it out. It sounds interesting.. Here is something I recommend...

A critique of 29 evidences for macro evolution

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

"No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs. "

This is actually somewhat true. If breeds interbreed (derp, thats why they called breeds teehee?) there is very little chance of speciation occurring. Seperate a Great Dane a Chihuahua by a huge expanse of water for long enough though and eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring, or in other words, become a different species.

"Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record."

I'd like to see you define a "fully formed" species. Honestly, this really shows how badly you misunderstand evolution. You are a transitional species, we all are, every single living thing on this planet is in some sense transitional. This misunderstanding of evolution seems to stem from the belief that it all happens at once, suddenly one day a bird hatches out of a dinosaur egg. Honey, it don't work like that, its millions of tiny changes from one generation to the next.

"The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild."

Again, this somewhat true. Adaptions for a specific thing often come at a price. Its why we still see so many simple organisms sitting around, bacteria still exists and has not evolved into more complex forms because simple works for that bacteria. If there is no strong evolutionary pressure then why evolve? However, there is PLENTY of pressure to evolve, be it exploiting a new niche, adapting better to hunt new prey or to survive in a different environment.

I really encourage you to learn more about speciation. It seems you accept that species do mutate to better survive, but you don't believe that results in them forming a whole new species. Thats quite a reasonable position to take but there is plenty of evidence explaining how speciation actually occurs. Gogo read up on it, its fascinating.

"Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?"

No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs.

"When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?"

Yes, this was a dumb question. Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record.

"If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild.

"It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

that's the magic part..it doesn't ever happen.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?


Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?
Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?
It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.
If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!
If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)
Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

>> ^shinyblurry:

Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?



Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?

Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?

It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.

If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!

If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)

Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

Creationists already consider Chihuahuas and Saint Bernards as the same kind, and have no problems with it. I don't think this is gonna change anyones mind. I think the definition of kind has basically become that any creature with a common ancestor is a kind. Leaving the only line between conventional evolution and creation, on this specific point, being that creationists deny a single common ancestor for all creatures.

Unfortunately for the chihuahua, the female dog down the street still rejected him in favor of the plush dog.

The chihuahua's not upset with the stuffed dog so much as it is about having to wear that hideous polo shirt.

We had a little dog once, (part Chihuahua, all mutt). Every time our backs were turned, it strayed into the neighbors yard and into their garbage at the side of the property. Keep in mind there were no fences as we were not in town and frankly no one has fences. We tried everything but that dog was "Unteachable"

One day we were all outside when all of a sudden - we heard a screaming cry of a yelp from the dog. when we looked up we saw our do running home from their yard - Yelp, Yelp, Yelp...

When it go to us, I picked him up and pulled a .177 pellet out of his leg. We all laughed at the dog because "It served him Right."

We were all outside, there were no fences and we had a clear view of everything around and yet we never saw the gun-man. They must have been camoflauged and hiding, just waiting to get that dog.

Nothing was ever said to the neighbors and they never said anything to us - Too bad they didn't make a YouTube Video, it would have been entertaining....

A squirrels diet consists of nuts, seeds, and fruit. It'll eat bird eggs, bugs,..... even an animal carcass if there is no other food source available. As for an "average" dog's compared to a squirrel's brain? An average chihuahua has the size of an average squirrel's brain...approx Squirrel brain length=3cm
approx brain weight=6g
A bull mastiff has a bigger brain than a chihuahua, as for intelligence?? Jury out....
Behavior studies and not brain size determines the intelligence of a creature-Bet 10 bucks the dogs smarter (way smarter) than the squirrel.

This guy is hungry or inebriated on scent-oh and, not love, squirrels live alone, fuck everything and anything they can....sometimes they nest together when it's witch-titty cold, otherwise, they are a solo act.

This concludes your squirrel lesson for the day.

>> ^rottenseed:
Is there really an eternal battle? I didn't know about Italian Greyhounds until I read comments on this thread. I know about wippets because my family owned several generations.
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^choggie:
^ was wondering about that mutated chihuahua....Wrong head for Italian Greyhound....unless their heads shrink as they grow, maybe it's a cross..Chihuahua/Whippet??

here we go. the eternal battle of determining if a given dog is an Italian greyhound or a whippet
i think there was less blood shed during the holy crusades than arguing italian greyhound vs whippet.

not "battle" but i've seen many threads on iggy/whippy forums arguing if a given dog is a whippet or an italian greyhound..especially if a given dog is in between of either breed's specs.

i love iggies. i think they are one of the best apartment breeds one can have.