If you take a look at my responses you'll see I've made one specific point, which is that the concentration of DNA an organism inherits does not say anything inherently about what traits are expressed in that organism. In this situation, a dog having less than 50% Pit Bull DNA doesn't mean anything without knowing the function of that DNA, let alone what we mean by "Pit Bull DNA"1.
As far as I know that's just how genetics work, just the same as how my siblings and I each carry 50% of our mother's DNA, but it's not necessarily the same 50%, if that makes sense.
I would also advise a second look at your sources as the tweet at the end of the list has been deleted and I couldn't find it in the wayback machine.
1Is this DNA within the canine genome, in keeping with the methods in the study you linked by Gunter, Barber, and Wynne? Or is it shared DNA in the broader sense, (like how humans technically share a large amount of our genetic code with bananas, albeit this is boilerplate stuff like "how to make a cell). I would assume the former, but since it's not sourced I can't tell. After searching the quote I found it verbatim in this listicle, which also does not directly provide the source.
Just refreshed and saw that my other posts got removed so I suppose this one isn't too long for this world
Can you provide any sources that show that pitbulls are genetically predisposed to aggression toward humans? Because I presented several that discount that notion.
Once again, my point is that I don't think that proportion of DNA inherited itself is any direct indicator of inherited traits. I don't have a source for the claim you mention because I'm not making that claim. In fact, isn't it in favor of your argument that being a pitbull mix doesn't automatically equal aggression?
my point is that I don't think that proportion of DNA inherited itself is any direct indicator of inherited traits.
Okay but that was the point I was making to begin with that even the genetic claims are bullshit. What even are you saying here? That all dogs are potentially violent? Because that is not a refutation.
Your whole argument seemed to be trying to refute my post based on that when it in fact reinforces my post.
I'd encourage you to go into the modlog and reread my comment where I said "I don't think this specific point is meaningful." It was not meant to address anything but that specific point because I believe it's not good reasoning regardless of who's using it for whatever purpose. That is where my "argument" begins and ends. I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I really did try my best to make clear the scope of my critique.
No I pointed out the racist origins of pitbull hysteria and BSL redlining. Are you that obtuse? Or do you just internalize unscientific racist bullshit because it "feels right"
You're saying that analyzing the behavior of different breeds is equivalent to phrenology, which implies that human "races" are as equivalently different from each other as dog breeds are, which is of course nonsense and racist.
No I am arguing the so-called "science" behind it is racist. Do you have any counter arguments backed up with actual data because I presented several sources in my post.
are absolutely more different from each other than a black person and a white person are from each other. Dogs have been selectively bred for ten thousand years, and they've been very specifically bred for different roles, literally changing their physical shape. Human beings have not, we're all pretty much the same. Unless you're going to argue that domestication and animal husbandry are fake then I do not see how this is equivalent to differences in melanin production.
My specific argument is with you comparing differences in dog breeds to phrenology. I'm not saying that dogs of a specific breed are more aggressive; Im saying that comparing dog breeds on a morphological level is not the same as comparing human races on a morphological level. Phrenology is a pseudoscience specifically because human races do not vary morphologically, especially not in skull shape. You can easily measure a dog's skull to tell a Great Dane from a Chihuahua, which is why I used those breeds as an example.
For another example beyond body profile, bloodhounds actually have more scent receptor cells than any other dog according to this article. A study from 2016 shows that scent hounds indeed perform better at sniffing for stuff. I did find a recent article about a study claiming to find evidence to the contrary, although it's a pre-print study that has not undergone peer review yet.
No it is not lmao. Dog breeds most certainly do have drastic morphological differences created by humans selectively breeding them for thousands of years.
That is true, Im not disputing that, but comparing the differences between dog breeds, which are wildly different morphologically, is not equivalent to phrenology and race science. Human races are not morphologically different from each other, race is a social construct.
Please show me some science that backs up your assumptions then. Because I am telling you your assumptions are based on racially motivated pseudoscience.
Im sorry but can you not see how a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are physically different from one another? One can entirely fit into the others mouth. I'm not arguing that Pit hysteria isnt founded in racism, but the concept that dogs breeds cannot be any more different from each other than human "races" are is insane.
Your own sources above specifically state that different breeds are identifiable through genetic testing, idk exactly what else you want from me here.
Removed by mod
You really think dog phrenology is gonna fly here? You'd understand it's just a Trojan horse for race science right?
deleted by creator
Please read the source material.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Wtf I just played out how your precious dog phrenology is dubious science with sources. I'm not fucking having this argument again.
Hexbear stop being weird about random shit challenge [failed]
If you take a look at my responses you'll see I've made one specific point, which is that the concentration of DNA an organism inherits does not say anything inherently about what traits are expressed in that organism. In this situation, a dog having less than 50% Pit Bull DNA doesn't mean anything without knowing the function of that DNA, let alone what we mean by "Pit Bull DNA"1.
As far as I know that's just how genetics work, just the same as how my siblings and I each carry 50% of our mother's DNA, but it's not necessarily the same 50%, if that makes sense.
I would also advise a second look at your sources as the tweet at the end of the list has been deleted and I couldn't find it in the wayback machine.
1Is this DNA within the canine genome, in keeping with the methods in the study you linked by Gunter, Barber, and Wynne? Or is it shared DNA in the broader sense, (like how humans technically share a large amount of our genetic code with bananas, albeit this is boilerplate stuff like "how to make a cell). I would assume the former, but since it's not sourced I can't tell. After searching the quote I found it verbatim in this listicle, which also does not directly provide the source.
Just refreshed and saw that my other posts got removed so I suppose this one isn't too long for this world
Can you provide any sources that show that pitbulls are genetically predisposed to aggression toward humans? Because I presented several that discount that notion.
Once again, my point is that I don't think that proportion of DNA inherited itself is any direct indicator of inherited traits. I don't have a source for the claim you mention because I'm not making that claim. In fact, isn't it in favor of your argument that being a pitbull mix doesn't automatically equal aggression?
Okay but that was the point I was making to begin with that even the genetic claims are bullshit. What even are you saying here? That all dogs are potentially violent? Because that is not a refutation.
Your whole argument seemed to be trying to refute my post based on that when it in fact reinforces my post.
I'd encourage you to go into the modlog and reread my comment where I said "I don't think this specific point is meaningful." It was not meant to address anything but that specific point because I believe it's not good reasoning regardless of who's using it for whatever purpose. That is where my "argument" begins and ends. I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I really did try my best to make clear the scope of my critique.
No I pointed out the racist origins of pitbull hysteria and BSL redlining. Are you that obtuse? Or do you just internalize unscientific racist bullshit because it "feels right"
You're saying that analyzing the behavior of different breeds is equivalent to phrenology, which implies that human "races" are as equivalently different from each other as dog breeds are, which is of course nonsense and racist.
No I am arguing the so-called "science" behind it is racist. Do you have any counter arguments backed up with actual data because I presented several sources in my post.
Yeah this
Show me the actual scientific data regarding aggression to humans.
My specific argument is with you comparing differences in dog breeds to phrenology. I'm not saying that dogs of a specific breed are more aggressive; Im saying that comparing dog breeds on a morphological level is not the same as comparing human races on a morphological level. Phrenology is a pseudoscience specifically because human races do not vary morphologically, especially not in skull shape. You can easily measure a dog's skull to tell a Great Dane from a Chihuahua, which is why I used those breeds as an example.
For another example beyond body profile, bloodhounds actually have more scent receptor cells than any other dog according to this article. A study from 2016 shows that scent hounds indeed perform better at sniffing for stuff. I did find a recent article about a study claiming to find evidence to the contrary, although it's a pre-print study that has not undergone peer review yet.
None of this says anything about behavior or human aggression.
Breeds are just as much a thing as race is, its all made up bullshit
No it is not lmao. Dog breeds most certainly do have drastic morphological differences created by humans selectively breeding them for thousands of years.
Pitbulls haven't been a "breed" for longer than the early 20th century. That is not "thousands of years"
deleted by creator
That is true, Im not disputing that, but comparing the differences between dog breeds, which are wildly different morphologically, is not equivalent to phrenology and race science. Human races are not morphologically different from each other, race is a social construct.
Please show me some science that backs up your assumptions then. Because I am telling you your assumptions are based on racially motivated pseudoscience.
Im sorry but can you not see how a Chihuahua and a Great Dane are physically different from one another? One can entirely fit into the others mouth. I'm not arguing that Pit hysteria isnt founded in racism, but the concept that dogs breeds cannot be any more different from each other than human "races" are is insane.
Your own sources above specifically state that different breeds are identifiable through genetic testing, idk exactly what else you want from me here.
Already addressed in my post.