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.
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.