|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:04 am
So Im in a 12 days of xmas comp, and one of the days (well the first one) was make a xmas comic about "a partridge in a pear tree" in stick figure form  I got second, but still figured I would share
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:08 am
Darwin as in Charles Darwin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:52 am
Clover_IceQueen Darwin as in Charles Darwin? lol, of course, its a nerd joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:56 am
Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen Darwin as in Charles Darwin? lol, of course, its a nerd joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:00 am
Clover_IceQueen Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen Darwin as in Charles Darwin? lol, of course, its a nerd joke. XD It was quite well recieved in the comp, but if your not a nerd or a evolutionist may not be as funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:06 am
Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen Darwin as in Charles Darwin? lol, of course, its a nerd joke. XD It was quite well recieved in the comp, but if your not a nerd or a evolutionist may not be as funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:26 am
Clover_IceQueen That's true. I have my own theories on the subject. Natural selection clearly exists since humans didn't used to have pinky toes, but I think the claim that we were once fish is stretching it a little lol True whilst it is extremly logical and pretty undenyable that all species evolved from one or two base origins is pretty hard to grasp, its quite possible that life itself came to be drawn from amino acids muliply at the same time which allowed for the wide range of genetic differences needed to allow for the establish ment of a shared code. But yes there is no way we were once fish, that would be stupid. Of course modern fish and humans going back many many many thousands of generations have a similar ancest that of course was a fish or fish like. Humans have always been human, if they were something else they wouldnt be human. Only thier ancesters wernt human XD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:29 am
Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen That's true. I have my own theories on the subject. Natural selection clearly exists since humans didn't used to have pinky toes, but I think the claim that we were once fish is stretching it a little lol True whilst it is extremly logical and pretty undenyable that all species evolved from one or two base origins is pretty hard to grasp, its quite possible that life itself came to be drawn from amino acids muliply at the same time which allowed for the wide range of genetic differences needed to allow for the establish ment of a shared code. But yes there is no way we were once fish, that would be stupid. Of course modern fish and humans going back many many many thousands of generations have a similar ancest that of course was a fish or fish like. Humans have always been human, if they were something else they wouldnt be human. Only thier ancesters wernt human XD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:36 am
Clover_IceQueen Exactly, but small changes on humans and other species make sense. For example, cats didn't used to have tails. Most cat breeds have gotten tails, but Manx cats are still tailless. One would argue that most cats evolved from a ancestor with a tail, and the loss of tails in such cats as bobcats is a secondary trait. Much like whales and dolpins who are secondary sea creatures (aka, at one point they were fish like, then they came to land became mammals and then returned to the ocean). "characteristic of the Manx cat is its absence or near-absence of a tail.[21] This a naturally occurring, cat body-type mutation of the spine, caused by a dominant gene." Whislt a dominant gene taking over and supressing the display of a body part could potentially be argued as evidance towards tailess cats, I believe the selection of tailessness in domestic manxs was human selection much in the same way as it was with the japanese bobtail (note in the japanese bobtail its a different dominant gene selectivly bred). Do you have any support for why you believe cats originally were tailess, besides traits we have selected and crafted in domestic animals?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:52 am
Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen Exactly, but small changes on humans and other species make sense. For example, cats didn't used to have tails. Most cat breeds have gotten tails, but Manx cats are still tailless. One would argue that most cats evolved from a ancestor with a tail, and the loss of tails in such cats as bobcats is a secondary trait. Much like whales and dolpins who are secondary sea creatures (aka, at one point they were fish like, then they came to land became mammals and then returned to the ocean). "characteristic of the Manx cat is its absence or near-absence of a tail.[21] This a naturally occurring, cat body-type mutation of the spine, caused by a dominant gene." Whislt a dominant gene taking over and supressing the display of a body part could potentially be argued as evidance towards tailess cats, I believe the selection of tailessness in domestic manxs was human selection much in the same way as it was with the japanese bobtail (note in the japanese bobtail its a different dominant gene selectivly bred). Do you have any support for why you believe cats originally were tailess, besides traits we have selected and crafted in domestic animals?
I just learned about it a few years ago. I don't remember from where. It may have been my collection of Zoobooks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:56 am
Clover_IceQueen I ******** hate whales emotion_donotwant I hate the fact that they exist let alone the fact that they are mammals.
I just learned about it a few years ago. I don't remember from where. It may have been my collection of Zoobooks. Whilst I am mainly a terrestian ecologist and arent that big on marine ecology I still know a fair bit about it. What dont you like about them? They are pretty amazing creatures. I mean the blue whale, which is still currently alive is the largest thing that ever lived (which is cool, because most mega fauna is extinct). But whales are pretty chill, they dont really cause many problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:08 am
Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen I ******** hate whales emotion_donotwant I hate the fact that they exist let alone the fact that they are mammals.
I just learned about it a few years ago. I don't remember from where. It may have been my collection of Zoobooks. Whilst I am mainly a terrestian ecologist and arent that big on marine ecology I still know a fair bit about it. What dont you like about them? They are pretty amazing creatures. I mean the blue whale, which is still currently alive is the largest thing that ever lived (which is cool, because most mega fauna is extinct). But whales are pretty chill, they dont really cause many problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:09 am
Clover_IceQueen I had a terrifying dream about them when I was younger, and I've hated them ever since. Ahh illgical hate thats totally fine. I would hate for it to be for some kind of misunderstanding about them as a animal. Irational hate is normal ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:16 am
Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen I had a terrifying dream about them when I was younger, and I've hated them ever since. Ahh illgical hate thats totally fine. I would hate for it to be for some kind of misunderstanding about them as a animal. Irational hate is normal ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:21 am
Clover_IceQueen Sagebomb Clover_IceQueen I had a terrifying dream about them when I was younger, and I've hated them ever since. Ahh illgical hate thats totally fine. I would hate for it to be for some kind of misunderstanding about them as a animal. Irational hate is normal ^_^ "usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational" Most phobias are irrational. Just because something is irrational dosnet make it not real, nor make it any easier for a indiviual to deal with. being knowledgable in most things dosent make one a jerk. Being a jerk is when you do things to intentionally put someone down or intentially mean them harm. Which I never do. Irrational fear is quite logical and quite well understood. Dosent change the fact its irrational. Understanding is the key to progressing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
