My friend says yes and I say she'd be turning her dogs into pussies. She says that rawhide and most dog foods are treated with harmful chemicals.
Who is right?
Kibble is kibble is kibble. Just like, as Maradon says, M&Ms and Salts all taste the same.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan probably says this to all the girls:
She says that rawhide and most dog foods are treated with harmful chemicals.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would they treat dog foods and treats with harmful chemicals and poisons?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Cuba:
In short, your friend is an idiot.
And can I add probably shouldn't be keeping dogs if she thinks like that.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Pvednes:
Even if they are willing to eat anything, including their own vomit, dogs are all carnivorous. Your friend is wrong, and her dogs would be the ones which suffer for it.
I agree.
If she wants a plant killer instead of a meat eater, tell her to get a rabbit.
Long answer: No.
quote:
Zaza's momma typed this shizzle:
Short answer: No.Long answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Disclaimer: I'm just kidding, I love all living things.
The fastest draw in the Crest.
"The Internet is MY critical thinking course." -Maradon
"Gambling for the husband, an abortion for the wife and fireworks for the kids they chose to keep? Fuck you, Disneyland. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the happiest place on Earth." -JooJooFlop
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Karnaj said:
IIRC, dogs aren't far enough evolved from wolves to be considered their own species. Even if they are, I doubt any canine authority would classify them as herbivores or even omnivores. Your best bet is to ask your local vet.
While dogs are very closely related to wolves, they are a different species. They are closely enough related to wolves to mate with each other and produce successful (ie: fertile) hybrids, however, which is about as close as you can get while still being different species.
And Parcelan, don't listen to your friend. Dogs are strictly carnivores.
quote:
Mr. Crabs had this to say about John Romero:
While dogs are very closely related to wolves, they are a different species. They are closely enough related to wolves to mate with each other and produce successful (ie: fertile) hybrids, however, which is about as close as you can get while still being different species.And Parcelan, don't listen to your friend. Dogs are strictly carnivores.
Sorry that is incorrect, the fact that dogs and wolves CAN produce viable fertile offspring proves they are not differant species.
from Dictionary.com first definition within the biological meanings for Species Malbi fucked around with this message on 06-12-2005 at 10:36 PM.
Biology.
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding
quote:
From the book of Malbi, chapter 3, verse 16:
Sorry that is incorrect, the fact that dogs and wolves CAN produce viable fertile offspring proves they are not differant species.
Actually, your statement is incorrect. There are many organisms that are different species that can produce viable offspring with each other. Look at the plant kingdom. The fact is, dog and wolf DNA is different enough from one another that they are considered seperate species. If anything, the dog is a sub-species of the wolf. I'm speaking with some confidence here, as I have taken a class on genetics that focused on this precise example.
Anyway, this argument is meaningless due to the fact that any man-made system of classifying organisms is full of problems.
Edit: Your definition of species is just one of many. The fact is, there are many other factors that go into classifying organisms. Regardless of whether or not you think dogs SHOULD be in the same species of wolves, most biologists place dogs and wolves apart. Mr. Crabs fucked around with this message on 06-12-2005 at 10:43 PM.
quote:
Mr. Crabs said this about your mom:
Actually, your statement is incorrect. There are many organisms that are different species that can produce viable offspring with each other. Look at the plant kingdom. The fact is, dog and wolf DNA is different enough from one another that they are considered seperate species. If anything, the dog is a sub-species of the wolf. I'm speaking with some confidence here, as I have taken a class on genetics that focused on this precise example.Anyway, this argument is meaningless due to the fact that any man-made system of classifying organisms is full of problems.
Edit: Your definition of species is just one of many. The fact is, there are many other factors that go into classifying organisms. Regardless of whether or not you think dogs SHOULD be in the same species of wolves, most biologists place dogs and wolves apart.
most of said problems are removed when you use a monophyletic classification system.
Doing a little more research on Canidae taxomy several intersting things are popping up, one Canis Rufus (Red wolf) has increasing evidence of being a hybrid of Canis Latrans (Coyote)and Canis Lupus (Grey wolf) this will likely result in Canis Latrans being reclassified as Canis Lupus Latrans a subspecies of Lupus where it shall join the ranks of Canis Lupus Dingo (Dingo) and Canis Lupus Hallstromi (New Guinea Singing Dog(
I also found this:
Though wolves and dogs are considered the same species (dogs are Canis lupus familiaris), there are many differences that domestication has wrought on dogs. One view is that there were four known races of grey wolf that have contributed to the dog. Canis lupus metris-optimae gave rise to all the sheepdogs and collies. Canis lupus intermedius developed into the hunting and working dogs like huskies, spaniels, setters, and pointers. Canis lupus leineri gave rise to the scent and sight hounds, and terriers. The final subspecies, Canis lupus inostranzewi, gave rise to the mastiff family of dogs, which includes the Saint Bernard, bulldog, boxer, Newfoundland, Labrador retriever, and standard schnauzer. (Source: Genetics and Molecular Biology ) (Source: Moore, Ruth. Evolution. Time life Inc: New York, 1962. Page 86.)
(NOTE: the source listed here is the source that my source used for his information)
Your confusion is the differance between something being a species and a SUBspecies, sub species can interbreed, which is why I expect Latrans to be reclassfied once its agreed that Canis Lupus and it are interbreedable.
quote:
Mr. Crabs had this to say about Duck Tales:
Actually, your statement is incorrect. There are many organisms that are different species that can produce viable offspring with each other. Look at the plant kingdom. The fact is, dog and wolf DNA is different enough from one another that they are considered seperate species. If anything, the dog is a sub-species of the wolf. I'm speaking with some confidence here, as I have taken a class on genetics that focused on this precise example.Anyway, this argument is meaningless due to the fact that any man-made system of classifying organisms is full of problems.
Edit: Your definition of species is just one of many. The fact is, there are many other factors that go into classifying organisms. Regardless of whether or not you think dogs SHOULD be in the same species of wolves, most biologists place dogs and wolves apart.
Failed biology huh?
The definition of a species in the higher forms of life is a group which can interbreed and produce viable offspring. A lion and a tiger can produce offspring, but they're sterile. Not viable. Horses and donkeys produce mules. Again, sterile, not viable. The same goes for all of domain Eukarya.
As for dogs and wolves, Canis lupus familiaris, and Canis lupus, respectively.
[Edit: *tags Malbi* That's actually rather interesting, I'd assumed they were mostly from fairly similar stock, though that makes a lot more sense.] Pvednes fucked around with this message on 06-14-2005 at 10:28 AM.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Kait wrote:
I don't know about vegan, but I know a lot of vetrinarians say that raw, unprocessed meat is better for animals than processed food. There are lots of websites selling unprocessed meat "meant" for cats and dogs, but it's pretty expensive. I wonder if we feed our pets crappy food for the same reason that so many people get the majority of their food from fast food restaurants? o.o
yes, we are cheap. welcome to the human race
