Am I the only one that hates them?
They look disgusting to me and it offers literally no evolutionary advantage, in fact, it's a huge evolutionary disadvantage.
I hear so many people call them cute but I just can't see it.
You aren't alone OP, my shelter is filled with these type dogs and the girls here are always gushing over them, I just don't see it.
>dog is literally out of breath just walking around
>throw a ball, it chases and lies down
>looks like someone smashed it's face in with a hammer
>always seem to be stupid
I prefer a dog with a real snout any day.
>it offers literally no evolutionary advantage, in fact, it's a huge evolutionary disadvantage.
since being loved by humans is dog's evolutionary advantage,
and brachycephalic dogs are loved by humans,
it offers the only evolutionary advantage that matters to dogs.
>loved by humans
Its a very niche look, if I could only take care of 1 dog I'd take a lab over one of these.
For work dogs no one would look twice at these because they're pretty much useless for any work activity.
Basically all it is is taking an animal that has great biological features, and turning it into jewelry. I wouldn't call that an advantage.
>Basically all it is is taking an animal that has great biological features, and turning it into jewelry.
>I wouldn't call that an advantage.
that's because you don't know what an advantage is.
those dogs are fed and cared for better than you are. They have an advantage.
Yes, but they're not healthier and they're quality of life is severely reduced as a consequence.
I agree OP, I'm so sick of purebreed stocks that have a ridiculous number of health problems. Even the big guys, german shepards, labs aren't immune from terrible breeding.
>evolution doesn't care about health or quality of life
Come on. I know what you're saying, but that's a stupid sentence.
>those dogs reproduce more often than you will.
>they have a clear evolutionary advantage.
Why do you keep comparing them against humans?
Bro we get it, you don't need top inform us how evolution works lol. OP was talking about their health obviously.
>The sick ones die.
all animals die.
it's WHEN they die that matters.
I just find it amusing that you pretend to be a biologist and think that definition is used in evolutionary science or any science.
the other anon is correct, humans are part of nature, and everything we do is natural. You'd understand if you were what you pretend to be.
of course you're not a biologist so you say stupid shit like that all the fucking time.
A moderate degree of brachycephalia was bred for in many fighting and guard dog breeds as it allows for a more powerful bite, and dogs aren't hugely disadvantaged by it until it becomes extreme. Boxers, for example, are pretty athletic and make great running partners in moderate climates, and then there's breeds like the Staffordshire bull terriers and the Molosser group. They've been bred for shorter, broader skulls as working animals and tend to have minimal disadvantages from it. Not all brachycephalic dogs are pugs.
I don't pretend to be anything, I've stated multiple times that I'm not into science.
>and think that definition is used in evolutionary science or any science.
evolution is used to refer to adaptation by natural means.
the word adaptation is used to everything else.
all evolution is adaptation, but not all adaptation is evolution.
>humans are part of nature
we're made and caused by people, so no.
>and everything we do is natural
by definition it's not.
stop butchering the english language, and stop pretending to be into science when you can't even respect linguistics.
>Humans have abiotic effects on the enviroment.
you asked me for examples of you saying un-zoologist-ey things.
that's one right there.
no college educated ecologist or zoologist is going to consider humans apart from nature.
there's a reason we distinguish between man made creations and things that occur naturally without out intervention.
while it may be "natural" in the wide definition of the world, it is more specifically defined as unnatural. Whether or not you agree with the semantics is irrelevant, something being caused/created by humans means the definition that describes that action in particular takes priority, that being unnatural.
>humans apart from nature
biologically wise? of course not.
ability and impact wise however humans are in a special niche in their ability to manipulate nature to the point its no longer "natural" when things occur.
just because humans are nature doesn't mean their impact on the world is nature.
>there's a reason we distinguish between man made creations and things that occur naturally without out intervention.
I'm telling you we make no such distinction in the natural sciences, it's meaningless.
further, evolution falls under the broad aegis of natural science, so when discussing evolution we don't talk about human artifice as distinct from nature.
mostly just to save confusion. Because artificial selection is just a type of natural selection.
You idiot. You're missing what he's saying. By the fucking definition of the dictionary, what humans do is not natural. There's no argument, he literally posted the definition are you're still arguing.
>just because humans are nature doesn't mean their impact on the world is nature.
and imagine how the impact might be lessened if people actually stopped thinking of themselves as separate from the systems that keep them alive, the systems they're destroying.
I've kind of thought that human actions are not in balance, and may eventually cause the collapse of entire system. Of course something will always remain, and the process of evolution will continue from what is left.
In that sense I would say man is "unnatural", because of how suddenly and with almost complete disregard to any of the "safety checks" of nature (one these being the predator-prey cyclic equilibrium) it can change the environment. Man is in that sense equal to a meteorite strike. Is that natural, I guess.
Also 99,9% of the species are extinct, I don't know what is the leading cause but if man causes an extinction, is it really any different to any of the previous ones except for the speed at which it occurs?
Anyway, it would be in our own interest to try to maintain a balance with nature.
>By the fucking definition of the dictionary, what humans do is not natural
>pretends to be an ecologist.
lay, plebian definitions.
evolution isn't discussed in lay terms. the concepts can't be discussed in lay terms.
>unless you stretch the meaning of words to such an extent that they no longer hold any sort of value.
this is the goal of modern ecology.
to stretch the concept of "unnatural" until it loses all meaning and falls from use.
for obvious reasons.
I just find it amusing that you need this explained to you.
evolution isn't discussed in general, it's cause and effect is.
the term isn't discussed because the scientific consensus on it is 'adaptation by natural means'
the term you're struggling to throw up is 'domestication' and it's not a natural process unless you stretch the meaning of the word to such an extent that they no longer hold any sort of value or meaning.
all you studied was dunning kruger.
one of the first things you should learn in any introduction to ecology class is that natural/unnatural is a false dichotomy.
if somehow your professor is incompetent or you've got the flu that day, you can't avoid learning it from the literature.
of course if you don't go to college or read the literature you might not get the memo.
Alright, if you're only going strictly off the definition. But you know...definitions change over time. If they change the defition, will you change your mind on this?
>Nb4 there's no reason for them to change it anytime soon.
Just humour me.
>who exactly are you to tell anyone what they should or should not have learned?
the college professor you never had, apparently.
>do you want me to link to bugguys definition?
I don't care what you do.
Your avoiding again. Come on, just humour me this one time. Treat it like a hypothetical if you will.
I just want to know, (hypotheticaly) if they changed the definition of it, would you accept it/change your mind.
>when you pretend to be into linguistics atleast don't whine about semantics
I'm interested in jargon and what it says about you.
ecology and biology have their jargon. You don't recognize it.
that says something about you.
Most of the notion that humans and what we do are not 'natural' stems from long standing western traditional beliefs that humans have dominion over nature and come from a Divine (Supernatural) source. This belief, and the definition of the word natural, is largely still held up in the minds of lay people.
At the end of the day, being a species that looks cute or cohabitates well with the most powerful species on your planet is a significant advantage. Things like sexual selection and 'artificial' selection are truly understood as subsets of natural selection.
I don't see how arguing with a troll is fun.
Especially since all it is is manipulating semantics and definitions to "argue" even though the meaning is clear to anyone not a complete idiot.
>oh yes I forgot science is it's own secret club with unique semantics...
you pretend to be part of the club and then fail every time someone offers the secret handshake.
or do you think a "botanist" isn't a scientist?
did you mean you're a "botanist" as in that's your hobby, or you got a certificate from a cereal box?
because you're insulting real botanists by pretending. At least learn the language.
>you pretend to be part of the club
again, not into science no matter how hard you pretend I am.
noun sci·en·tist \ˈsī-ən-tist\
: a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems
my job doesn't involve this.
>I don't see how arguing with a troll is fun.
he's a whack-a-mole game.
every time you pin him down on one point he pops up on a different one.
which can be amusing.
and honestly he seems to enjoy the abuse.
all that's abused every time we argue is your ego as self-proclaimed scientist.
I don't like politics because I'm not fond of drinking more than one cup of tea a day.
Oh you cheeky cunt. How am I supposed to keep poking you if you pull the 'I don't know' card?
Guess I'm shit out of luck then.
>the science of plants; the branch of biology that deals with plant life.
I deal with plant life, I don't fit the definition of scientist though.
noun sci·en·tist \ˈsī-ən-tist\
: a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems
>I don't do any botanic research and I don't solve any botanic problems.
perky boobies and cute cheeks are also a bonus.
I also have a thing for prominent collar bones.
a botanist is a practitioner of science.
a botanist is a scientist.
I'm trying to understand your reasoning in saying you're a scientist but not a scientist.
I have a feeling there's an amusing misunderstanding beneath it.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
i'm not a practitioner of science, I'm just a knower of it.
there's a difference between 'science' and 'scientist'
you're not really a scientist either because your only contribution to your field is annoyance.
Welp, I haven't felt the need to use my body to win arguments...unless it's with my fiance and I really want a back rub. But that's rare.
You win this round Bugguy. But I'll be back!
>i'm not a practitioner of science,
yes, I know.
a botanist is a practitioner of science. You claim to be a botanist except for all that icky science stuff.
I guess you don't have an amusing explanation, you just lied.
>you're not really a scientist either because your only contribution to your field is annoyance.
you've known me long enough to dox me and read my contributions to my field if you had an ounce of interest.
4chan isn't science. There is no science being done here. I'm not sure you understand that.
KEK your ass is so bad you got called a man on /soc/. who the fuck flirts on 4chan, especially /an/, this much for attention when they have a fiancé. Stop avatar anime fagging too it's almost as disgusting as your man ass and feet.
>a botanist is a practitioner of science.
a botanist is a KNOWER of science, practising isn't necessary.
>I'm not sure you understand that.
if I did I wouldn't be here as I just stated multiple times I'm not interested in it.
I don't give two shits less about humans being retard fish I just like to correct people that think they're not for the sake of arguing.
I almost wanted to ask for the thread but now I'm not sure if I still want to see it.
atleast I can pretend right now.
no matter how much you dislike me claiming that I don't have a decent grasp of botany is delusional.
>a botanist is a KNOWER of science, practising isn't necessary.
at some point a scientist is required to practice science.
and tbh you can't graduate with a botany degree unless you've done (and published) some science.
>noun sci·en·tist \ˈsī-ən-tist\
: a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems
>and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems
>at some point a scientist is required to practice science.
so that would make a non-practising person that studied science an ex-scientist.
>so that would make a non-practising person that studied science an ex-scientist.
retired is the usual word, but yes.
since you've never done any science you're not a scientist.
you are at best a student of science, though if that's the case you're terrible at it.
>you can't be bad at something you don't do
I tend to agree.
you're not a terrible botanist, you're just not a botanist.
>knowing =/= applying
again we agree.
a botanist is one that knows AND applies.
you are not a botanist.
you are at best a student of botany. A poor student.
>you're just not a botanist.
whatever makes you feel better I guess.
>a botanist is one that knows AND applies.
you'd hope that was the case but it isn't.
I have to show a lot of botanists around, I'm more like a guide.
the fucks here can't even find Phyteuma spicatum subsp. nigrum on their own.
I imagine you living in this world where you think all a scientist does is run around identifying things, and believing in your heart that if you can identify things you're a scientist too.
that my friend is real autism. You are completely blind.
based on the conversation we just have you should be able to come with a better conclusion than that.
but I already knew that you had zero reading comprehension so don't worry about it.
> where you think all a scientist does is run around identifying things
i just said a couple posts ago that science is almost entirely labwork.
>and believing in your heart that if you can identify things you're a scientist too.
i don't think that otherwise i wouldnt deny being a scientist.
i imagine that you think you know me, you really dont.
>i imagine that you think you know me, you really dont.
I diagnose you, I don't want to know you.
You claim to look down on scientists for not having memorized esoteric cultivars and their characteristics.
this is an essentially autistic view.
a diagnostically autistic view.
great at memorizing data, but don't know what to do with concepts.
you're doing a god awful job at it.
>You claim to look down on scientists
i never said i looked down on them for that, that's just a baseless assumption from your part.
they're good at labwork, not so good at fieldwork, it's how school functions here, it's almost entirely theoretical.
>esoteric cultivars and their characteristics.
it's a wild plant.
i know what to do with concepts, i'm just not interested in doing it.
make yourself useful, I made this construction earlier this week, the red lines are logs I plan on adding, it's a suprise for some girl.
do you like it?
also it's made with biologically degradable wire only.
>i know what to do with concepts, i'm just not interested in doing it.
in autistic people such as yourself this is called restricted behavior.
you concentrate on one part of the whole to the exclusion of the whole.
It's an old thread deleted now, that it/she/him was showing off to anons during an attentionwhore thread on /ck/. As someone who takes great enjoyment in browsing food/ cooking related content it put me off my appetite. Sorry to dissapoint.
i don't qualify for autism, i just happen to have some characteristics of it.
from past experience that's what you tend to do, you have trouble reading between the lines and have zero understanding of how people function in general.
I still don't have an answer to my construction.
>you have trouble reading between the lines and have zero understanding of how people function in general.
there is certainly a lack of communication between us, though it seems restricted to you, not me.
>I still don't have an answer to my construction.
I was being polite. I feel bad for you.
with any luck the girl you made it for won't feel the same pity.
you're confusing my lack of care with lack of communication.
like you said, I could dox you based on what you've told in the past, but I never did because I don't care enough.
how about this one.
>how about this one
it doesn't have that Blair Witch vibe.
>you're confusing my lack of care with lack of communication.
when I understand a thing and you don't, only one of us appears to know it.
>she's into that kind of shit though
my first wife was as well. that doesn't mean she doesn't prefer more traditional gestures. If you change your style to please her, you're not a person, just a reflection of her.
>you mean like when you confused reptiliomorpha for reptiles?
as I recall that was you.
>that doesn't mean she doesn't prefer more traditional gestures
she might, but I don't, I had fun constructing it even though I accidently cut my hand multiple times and ended up losing like a half a litre of blood.
>as I recall that was you.
no you called synapsids reptiles and took Dimetrodon as example.
>no you called synapsids reptiles and took Dimetrodon as example
no, I said early synapsids were reptiles.
Dimetrodon is one example of an early synapsid that was a reptile.
there aren't any reptilian synapsids alive today.
You said, "reptiles are pretty much a clade now." Which was amusingly wrong then, but has since become boringly wrong. I get bored with it when I realize you're not joking, you're just ignorant.
I cant believe you babies are still arguing on 4chan about such stupid bullshit. Your ego and adrenaline levels are through the roof.
>no, I said early synapsids were reptiles.
and I corrected you with citation that they're reptiliomorphic amphibians.
>Dimetrodon is one example of an early synapsid that was a reptile.
but it's not a reptile and it's not an ancestor of modern mammals.
reptiles aren't a clade yet due to the misunderstanding that mammals are part of it, give it a few years.
>they're reptiliomorphic amphibians
see, I really can't tell if you're joking or authentically stupid.
It's funny either way.
>reptiles aren't a clade yet due to the misunderstanding that mammals are part of it, give it a few years
>you accepted it last time, that's good enough for me.
I was probably laughing when I agreed with you.
I'm not actually invested in your education, I don't care if you're completely wrong about stuff. I just like watching you wriggle out of it when you're pinned down.
unfortunately I think cladistics vs gradistics is a bit above you.
>people in this thread trying to argue that dogs with deformed faces are an evolutionary advantage and aren't just unhealthy abominations artificially created by humans through intense manipulation and inbreeding
>are an evolutionary advantage and aren't just unhealthy abominations artificially created by humans through intense manipulation and inbreeding
the two aren't mutually exclusive.
in this case being unhealthy abominations artificially created by humans through intense manipulation and inbreeding IS an evolutionary advantage.
>muh dictionary is infallible!
>Webster's is the only truth!
Yeah not like academic texts all have differing definitions of various terms themselves.
You're the autist here pal.
there aren't any special snowflake acedemic terms that go straight against the regular definition of a word, it's completely and utterly retarded to think that.
accept that you're wrong and fuck off already.
It's an evolutionary advantage because it practically ensures breeding. That's literally all there needs to be classified as an evolutionary advantage. Stop being an obtuse retard, tripfag.
I'm another anon. Natural's Webster definition does not solely rest on "not human." So no it doesn't go against the dictionary definition.
Also even if it did why would that matter? What do you do, wait until the dictionary is updated to accept new definitions of words?
Do you think language is this static thing that never changes?
Jesus Christ Webster's and other dictionaries are a standard, not a fucking rulebook.
these don't go against the regular definition, they're part of it.
you're claiming these terms have some hidden meaning that isn't listed anywhere and only known by the scientific community.
>you're claiming these terms have some hidden meaning that isn't listed anywhere and only known by the scientific community
after years of reading what you write I'm sure of it.
you have no clue what this stuff means.
Most of them describe concepts you can't even fathom.
>language changes do whatever I say is true!
i'm not going to argue with children that can't accept they're wrong.
your entire argument sums down to ad hominem.
show me evidence that this term has a different meaning as scientific consensus, that isn't listed under the regular definition.
deluding the meaning of words to such an extinct that they no longer have any value doesn't make you less incorrect.
i only argue in statics, i don't care whether it changes you're still wrong for the time being.
>your entire argument sums down to ad hominem.
your dunning kruger is so advanced you're trying to argue with someone that isn't into science and have to defend yourself by pretending there's some hidden meaning to words.
BugGuy, just letting you know that you are indeed more correct on this argument, and often there is no way to 'correct' anyone on the internet, and so it is a complete waste of energy trying to do so. Arguing on the internet is simply a matter of protecting the ego, and not about a discussion with the intent to learn.
Also... arguing about english and semantics? That is one of the lowest you can go.
Got dick pics btw? Or are you asexual.
That wasn't buggay. That was a fan of his. Me. I think he is extremely annoying and has some very closed minded, unscientific opinions on many topics he chooses to nose himself into. But for some reason, I am starting to develop a liking for him. I want to cuddle him and give him head scratches.
Oh, and he is winning this argument in terms of what is truth btw, as much as id hate to admit it.
>i just sound autistic during arguments because i filter my feelings out to avoid emotional bias during them.
>and because i concentrate on individual words instead of sentences or conversations
>and because i concentrate only on details of things while ignoring the whole
>and because i can't admit when i'm wrong, and i'm always wrong
>and because i'm "a bit odd."
>and because i torture and kill the neighbors' pets.
Dude, when your definition of natural ends up being something like 'all of everything except for humans' (as it is for most people, especially the strongly religious) it really is a tacit admission that we are part of natural but we want to keep ourselves separate. Similar to how Apes often is thought of as 'all Hominoidea except homo sapiens,' we think of all animals except for us as natural.
See my post here >>1968430
At the end of the day we must be natural. In the same way our decedents will always be apes. Our children will never not be ape-children, no matter how much some people hate thinking of us as apes, as monkeys, or as animals in general. Humans were brought about by the same processes that all other animals came about, and humans building things like houses and bridges simply comes as ~naturally~ to us as ant colonies building extensive underground systems or birds building nests.
Also, if anyone has a problem with the fact that I mentioned humans are monkeys view this: https://youtu.be/4A-dMqEbSk8
I really have no problem dealing with it. I didn't expect much from the conversation anyway. you've states numerous times you don't care about science. But I figured I'd try and make a couple posts ( >>1969363, >>1968430 ) to illustrate some basic ideas. Even if not for your benefit, for the benefit of others.
Your old definitions, like linnaean taxonomy, are broken and are on their way out in the scientific community, or at least on their way to be improved and reformed by newer scientific understanding to a point where the old forms are no longer recognizably there.
Even if you say 'no, I'm not natural, I'm a "person,"' you're still just a monkey. A monkey sitting at a computer is not really all that special.
>Your old definitions
these are the clear modern definitions you can find in every dictionary.
>are broken and are on their way out in the scientific community
because scientists have a special dictionary no one is allowed to look in right.
it's not a higher form, it's one you made up, it's a pretend-form.
evolution is ALWAYS adaptation by natural means, this is adaptation by selective breeding, it's called domestication not evolution.
>because scientists have a special dictionary no one is allowed to look in right.
Scientists routinely use different definitions than the lay public. Often because the definitions the lay public uses contradicts actual science.
And yes, there are "special" dictionaries for scientific understanding.
For example, you've had the the absurdity of the notion that humans are not natural explained to you. Lets take a look at that in a scientific dictionary.
I made an image for this as well:
On the left I got the American Heritage Dictionary definitions, take particular note of number 3.
On the right I have the American Heritage Science Dictionary which is going to define words as they might be understood by scientifically literate people. You'll notice it pretty clearly eschews that emotional and unscientific definition, essentially the "nature is everything except us." And just to clarify, you're included in that definition, monkey.
I suggest you re-read my posts again for additional clarity. >>1968430 >>1969363 >>1969389
it would be better if you send yourself back to school for not understanding words as simple as natural.
your entire argument is based on your lack of reading comprehension and plain ignorance.
you know i'm correct and just don't want to admit it, but sure keep grasping at those straws.
i don't have demonstrated self-awareness so I can't 'feel' like anything.
While not wanting to get involved in the entertaining "bugguy BTFO" horror show about the scientific use of language, I was always under the impression that the reason behind the popularity of brachiocephalic dogs, particularly the scrunchy faced versions, was due to their resemblance to the faces of babies.
This being why people generally and women particularly love them, since we are, to an extent, hardwired to find them adorable.
If that isn't an evolutionary advantage, I don't know what is. I mean, cats gave the same babyish faces which put them at a similar advantage over other small, potentially useful predators like weasels and mongooses which would also hang around neolithic farmsteads.
One is bred by humans to a far greater extent than others, but they both exhibit the same advantage.
even if domestication were a form of evolution it still wouldn't be an evolutionary advantage because domestication always ends up in limited genepools, and small genepools are weak genepools.
they might be succesfull for now, in that they breed a lot, but their genes are so bad every generation can be the last.
>evolution is ALWAYS adaptation by natural means, this is adaptation by selective breeding, it's called domestication not evolution
So does that mean that it is impossible for scientists to dmonstrate that 'evolution' is occurring in bacteria cultured in a captive setting? What would be the correct word ?
>Tfw you always gets the most well-behaved, sweet-hearted and loving labs ever
>They always have terrible, terrible health issues
First one died to cancer at three and the two I have now both seriously tore their ACLs within a month of each other, and can't run or go on long walks anymore because of it.
Well, they can, and they love doing it, but it puts them in so much pain that they cry and whine for two days after.
OP tries to point out how Brachycephalic dogs are ugly and unhealthy, but erroneously attempts to argue that it's evolutionary disadvantageous in attempt to bolster his position with sciencey sounding shit.
People argue about it.
Resident tripfag, "knower of science" who is apparently a botanist makes an ass of oneself, literally claiming that artificial selection isn't evolution, when artificial selection by botanists have formed the foundation of modern understanding of genetics and evolution.
No one can tell the difference between scientific and lay definitions of words.
No one bothers to really talk about brachycephalic dogs because it would be boring to have a thread where everyone just agrees with each-other that breeding dogs to be like that is not good, and we should instead breed pets that are happy and healthy.