Liger - Nature or Cruelty?

Dmasterman
atheist
Posts: 58
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Liger - Nature or Cruelty?

Bred for it's skills in magic.

 

 

But seriously: this is a question I've always wondered.

 

As we know, a Liger the offspring of a male Lion and a female tiger, resulting in a VERY large cat that resembles both a lion and a tiger. They are only bred in zoo's where tamers or zoo keepers create the opportunity for a male lion and female tiger to be born. However, many animal activists have stated that this is animal cruelty to both the liger and it's parents as it is an "un-natural creature" that was never meant to be bred (since it never happens in the wild). That it's existence is a living hell due to it's size and amazing growth which overall gives it a pain filled life. (more info here: youtube.com/watch?v=wKYILLEdy5s )

 

SO my question is: Are ligers really un-natural creatures? Were they really "showcase freaks" humans made for show and display?

 

Or are they natural creatures and allowed by nature and evolution to exist? After all, if nature hadn't intended this, why would lions and tigers be able to create an offspring anyway?

 

So what are your thoughts, or maybe you can shed some facts on this?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Dmasterman wrote:SO my

Dmasterman wrote:

SO my question is: Are ligers really un-natural creatures? Were they really "showcase freaks" humans made for show and display?

 

I would say they are no more freakish than mules and dog/wolf hybrids.  Or dog/coyote, or domestic cat/smallish wild cat or........

For show and display?  More than likely the first one or two were by accident.  The female was in heat, and no one thought she would - let alone could - breed with the other species of big cat.

 

Dmasterman wrote:

Or are they natural creatures and allowed by nature and evolution to exist? After all, if nature hadn't intended this, why would lions and tigers be able to create an offspring anyway?

 

So what are your thoughts, or maybe you can shed some facts on this?

 

Species are not neatly separated into groups.  Sure, lizards will not mate with elephants.  But the line between canids is famously blurry - dogs, wolves, coyotes, and African wild dogs can all interbreed and have fertile offspring even though they have been separated genetically by 10s if not 100s of thousands of years.  And the domestic dog likely qualifies as a ring species - where similar size dogs can reproduce, but it is not physically possible for a Great Dane and a Chihuahua to mate.

"A species is a reproductively isolated group of organisms."  And it is up to the critters involved just exactly what that means. 

This blurriness between related species is most likely a good thing evolutionarily.  If there is a sudden change in the environment, perhaps enough of the crosses are fertile and perhaps some of them can survive better in the changed ecological niches.  Perhaps.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Dmasterman wrote:

Bred for it's skills in magic.

But seriously: this is a question I've always wondered.

As we know, a Liger the offspring of a male Lion and a female tiger, resulting in a VERY large cat that resembles both a lion and a tiger. They are only bred in zoo's where tamers or zoo keepers create the opportunity for a male lion and female tiger to be born. However, many animal activists have stated that this is animal cruelty to both the liger and it's parents as it is an "un-natural creature" that was never meant to be bred (since it never happens in the wild). That it's existence is a living hell due to it's size and amazing growth which overall gives it a pain filled life. (more info here: youtube.com/watch?v=wKYILLEdy5s )

SO my question is: Are ligers really un-natural creatures? Were they really "showcase freaks" humans made for show and display?

Or are they natural creatures and allowed by nature and evolution to exist? After all, if nature hadn't intended this, why would lions and tigers be able to create an offspring anyway?

So what are your thoughts, or maybe you can shed some facts on this?

Define unnatural.

Never happens in the wild? You mean never happens these days? Or does the claim to never have a basis in saying the Asian lion and the Asian tiger never mated before the Romans made the Asian lion extinct? (Is extincted a verb?)

As to the life of pain, is this in fact verified and if so, how? I have read of the liger and the tigon several times and have never heard of any claim of pain. The only issue expressed for the liger is in the wild the liger grows larger than necessary to eat well and so has to eat more than normal to continue to live. Food supply is not an issue in a zoo. In the wild evolution shows that predators do not grow larger than necessary to deal with their prey. And when the prey grows smaller the predators get smaller.

For the department of evil science, maybe with a breeding program we can develop a species that can prey on elephants.

===

For the record the issue is the size controlling gene is in a different sex for the lion and tiger and with this match there is no size controlling gene.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

On biological ground, we don't really go with the idea of there being species. The was formulated before Darwin and is thus rooted in the idea of there being “kinds” of critters. The modern ground is about how close diferent critters are related.

 

Do a web search for “cladistics”.

 

As far as out of species breeding goes, I claim mixed feelings on that one. For the parents, it sounds like kind of “the only chance is really ugly and is fairly different” However, inbreeding is well known to cause huge issues. Outbreeding reduces that.

 

I can see the concern with outbreeding. As an atheist, the idea of fucking a chimp is like, OK if I had no other option then sure. I would rather get busy with a skank, slut or hooker (all of which happen).

 

As a cat person, I spent 18 years owned by a dude who was part Asian snow leopard. I am currently looking for another. BTW, they are immune to FIV (kitty AIDS).

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
What is the evidence that

What is the evidence that the liger lives a life of pain? Sorry, don't have time to watch a video right now.

My opinion: If it is indeed true that a liger is condemned to a life of pain and suffering, then I would indeed say this is a form of animal cruelty. If it is not true, then it isn't. The word 'unnatural' is undefined and has no coherent meaning, and so has nothing to do with anything.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
a_nony_mouse wrote: For the

a_nony_mouse wrote:
For the department of evil science, maybe with a breeding program we can develop a species that can prey on elephants
Uh...humans fit that niche. I also saw a sad video of a pride of lions taking down a full grown bull. In blood tooth and claw under the watchful and loving eye of an all powerful creator. Sad

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Doesn't mules, ligers,

Doesn't mules, ligers, tilions, etc. blow a huge hole in the fundies insistence on "kinds" and how they cannot be interbred (micro not macro)? Or isn't it another example how they have moved their line in the sand?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well natural, I don't really see a life of pain here.

 

If there is a cruelty aspect to this one, it could be captivity but I suspect not so much. Cats are clearly adaptable to the deal. Rather, the problem that I see is what is being done to the parents to force a breeding that otherwise would not happen.

 

Seriously, dad has to be all about “Damn! No stripes but she smells right and I am horny as all fuck. Gotta go for it, not much choice.”

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think the breeding

 I don't think the breeding in and of itself is cruelty. I think zoos in general are animal cruelty and they sicken me. I can't go through a zoo without getting ridiculously pissed off at the living conditions the animals are generally kept in and I think it is extremely cruel to put the animals under that kind of constant stress for entertainment. You take an animal like a tiger that has a range covering many square miles in the wild and you are going to pen it into small cage? The poor thing sits there and paces back and forth with no where to go while the crowd shrieks with delight. I find it sickening. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't thinking about

I wasn't thinking about that, but yes, I agree with that too.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Dmasterman wrote: However,

Dmasterman wrote:
However, many animal activists have stated that this is animal cruelty to both the liger and it's parents as it is an "un-natural creature" that was never meant to be bred (since it never happens in the wild). That it's existence is a living hell due to it's size and amazing growth which overall gives it a pain filled life.

I have no clue whether they usually suffer from chronic pain or the psychological issues mentioned in the video, but I think it's plausible. Just think of how fucked up human psychology can get even without adding DNA from a whole other species.

Quote:
Are ligers really un-natural creatures? Were they really "showcase freaks" humans made for show and display?

 

Or are they natural creatures and allowed by nature and evolution to exist? After all, if nature hadn't intended this, why would lions and tigers be able to create an offspring anyway?

It doesn't matter whether they're "un-natural". The problem a lotta people have is that they assume if it's natural then it's totally fine, at least as a rule of thumb. In answering whether it's ethical to create a conciousness, asking whether a mindless force (nature) has done it first is completely irrelevant, just like it is in every other ethical decision.

Now, are they made for profit by people who don't give a shit about their wellfare? Abso-fucking-lutely, just like with almost every business involving animals.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Doesn't

ex-minister wrote:

Doesn't mules, ligers, tilions, etc. blow a huge hole in the fundies insistence on "kinds" and how they cannot be interbred (micro not macro)? Or isn't it another example how they have moved their line in the sand?

Anybody?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I don't think the breeding in and of itself is cruelty. I think zoos in general are animal cruelty and they sicken me. I can't go through a zoo without getting ridiculously pissed off at the living conditions the animals are generally kept in and I think it is extremely cruel to put the animals under that kind of constant stress for entertainment. You take an animal like a tiger that has a range covering many square miles in the wild and you are going to pen it into small cage? The poor thing sits there and paces back and forth with no where to go while the crowd shrieks with delight. I find it sickening. 

^ That sums up my views.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

ex-minister wrote:

Doesn't mules, ligers, tilions, etc. blow a huge hole in the fundies insistence on "kinds" and how they cannot be interbred (micro not macro)? Or isn't it another example how they have moved their line in the sand?

Anybody?

Well, it should, but it doesn't. That's because their 'kind' is never defined in a way that can be disproven by example. If you gave those examples to a creationist they would respond (very predictably):

But a mule is still of the horse-donkey kind. Even my 5 year old daughter can see that they are the same kind. A mule is not a snake or a fish, it's the same kind as a horse or a donkey.

A liger is still a cat. It's not a bird or a jellyfish. When evolutionists can show a tiger giving birth to a jellyfish, then I'll believe them. Never going to happen! Evolutionists are soooo ignorant and stupid that they think evolution means a cat can give birth to a jellyfish! HAHAHAHA! Stupid fucking morans!!!

I've got TWO words for any athiest who believes evilution: Crocoduck!


 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 Thanks Natural. I believe

 Thanks Natural. I believe they always move the goal posts and "kinds" certainly is far more ambiguous than the term species.. And the bible was written in primitive times so it is going to be childlike. 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That crocoduck pic is out of

That crocoduck pic is out of date. They found one for real. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:What is the

natural wrote:

What is the evidence that the liger lives a life of pain? Sorry, don't have time to watch a video right now.

My opinion: If it is indeed true that a liger is condemned to a life of pain and suffering, then I would indeed say this is a form of animal cruelty. If it is not true, then it isn't. The word 'unnatural' is undefined and has no coherent meaning, and so has nothing to do with anything.

Yeah, just speaking generically from somewhat related biological information, they probably do have more pain than a Lion or Tiger.

They're huge.  Lions are already huge, much larger than what I used to think they were the size of growing up.  The dang things are horse size, or at least they seem when you first see one in real life.   But Ligers dwarf Lions.   Just massively insanely huge.

Every body plan has an ideal size.   I'm most familiar with this in relation to breeds of dogs.

The ideal size which causes the least amount of complications for the body structure of a dog is around 40 pounds.  All mutts, for the most part, don't depart too far from this weight.  Definetly not more than 15 pounds.  Otherwise that's not a mutt, that's a mixed breed from two or three different breeds of abnormally small or abnormally large dogs.

Small, yippy dogs that women carry around in their purses have breed related biological issues.   Huge dogs like Rottweilers have breed related biological issues.   Both because they are much smaller than or much larger than what fits within their ideal body size.  Humans that have malfunctioning pituary glands and grow to 8 or 9 feet tall, have you ever looked them up?   They all have canes even at young ages because, damn, we're hard enough on our spines just walking on two legs.   Add half again the size to this body plan and you're damn near a cripple in your twenties.

So yes, I would make the educated guess that Ligers suffer more joint and general body pain than a normal Lion or Tiger.  It makes perfect sense with the things I've read and experienced with animals that are so far out of the norm for their ideal body size for their bodily structure.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I already covered this before but it appears to have been missed.

 

Species is a concept that predates Darwin. The current deal is just how close two populations are related. If they are close enough to breed, then the difference is not a big deal. If they are a bit farther, then sterile offspring are likely. If they are even farther, then no offspring is the general outcome.

 

Then too, the middle ground gets into murky territory. Where you end up with some percentage of infertile offspring, you will also have the complmentary percentage of fertile offspring. I should know because I spent eighteen years with a domestic cat who was part Asian Snow Leopard.

 

The health issues are rarely all that big with deliberate outbreeds. The idea breaks the issues caused by the deliberate inbreeding that already goes on. My Bengal was probably immune to a good number of diseases that kill other domestic cats.

 

Does a liger have specific physical issues because of it's size? I would not be surpirsed but then every critter has issues regardless. Giantism might be one but who can say? How many are there to even study?

 

Giantism actually exists in all species. Because it is pretty much always related to something going really wrong otherwise, reproduction is limited. I know that it happens in snakes because I know a few breeders. Orthopedic issues seem unlikely there but they tend to a fairly reduced life span anyway.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ligers can reach the lower

Ligers can reach the lower weight range of a 'light riding horse', around 840-900 lbs, while lions are more like 550 lbs max. Tigers can reach somewhere between the weight of a lion and a liger. Most of the lions I have seen in recent years were when I did a trip to Africa in the late 90's, in the 'wild', ie in big game reserves in Kenya, Botswana, and Namibia.

Not horse size. But it was cool to observe them outside of a zoo...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ex-minister wrote:
a_nony_mouse wrote:
For the department of evil science, maybe with a breeding program we can develop a species that can prey on elephants
Uh...humans fit that niche. I also saw a sad video of a pride of lions taking down a full grown bull. In blood tooth and claw under the watchful and loving eye of an all powerful creator. Sad

Come on. You know what I mean. Real rip and tear, tooth and claw kills. The lion thing sounds right.

Besides elephants are winning against humans by becoming tuskless. Anyone want to talk about the speed of evolution? 150 years to losing the reason people kill them and maybe only 60 years before the selective pressure became significant.

Seriously that was sort of a joke comment. Experimental evolution is a bit more doable than experimental cosmology. I'm always looking for ways to expand the experimental method. I am a fundamentalist physicist.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

ex-minister wrote:
Doesn't mules, ligers, tilions, etc. blow a huge hole in the fundies insistence on "kinds" and how they cannot be interbred (micro not macro)? Or isn't it another example how they have moved their line in the sand?

Doesn't everything?

Most of the problem is the Linnaeus genus/species system was developed to early. It is still used but we should be aware many of the things in his classification that became common simply do not satisfy his rules. Homo Sapiens can all interbreed so no speciation. So can all dogs but the Linnaeus system has wolves and domestic dogs as different species. Commonly speaking coyotes are also different but they interbreed with all other dogs.

Species used to mean cannot interbreed. These days it is cannot and do not interbreed. In the Tigon and Liger case do not means only when not given the opportunity. It raises a question, have cats speciated? We have not. Dogs have not. We can see why mules and burros can exist but not as a species as they do not breed true as a hybrid and mules cannot breed at all. Someone bred a zebra with something else a few years ago. I forget the details.

There really are not to many examples of this. Killer bees are one. It may have broken out in America but African and European bees separated a lot more recently than African and American bees. In fact is it not clear how African and European bees were ever separated. Is there something along the Nile that prevented African ones from advancing into Europe for at least 6000 years? Or is the African bee a mutation less than 6000 years old?

If you want a fuller understanding of speciation look to Dawkins, speciation is isolation. It does not mean they can no longer interbreed. It simply means speciation becomes more likely.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't think the breeding in and of itself is cruelty. I think zoos in general are animal cruelty and they sicken me. I can't go through a zoo without getting ridiculously pissed off at the living conditions the animals are generally kept in and I think it is extremely cruel to put the animals under that kind of constant stress for entertainment. You take an animal like a tiger that has a range covering many square miles in the wild and you are going to pen it into small cage? The poor thing sits there and paces back and forth with no where to go while the crowd shrieks with delight. I find it sickening. 

I thought zoos were passed that these days? Not since I was a kids have I seen animals in cages. Granted their "natural" setting is rarely natural but they are quite wide open and have places to retreat if they get tired of being entertained by the passing two legged food sticks. Generally they hang around outside and watch.

In return they get to die of old age. Their food is parasite free. Their diseases and teeth problems are treated. Most of them are encouraged to mate. Absent human intellectual interests, what a life! And if they are intellectual, they can study the meat sticks.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Freedom > Safety & Security.

Freedom > Safety & Security.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
Doesn't mules, ligers, tilions, etc. blow a huge hole in the fundies insistence on "kinds" and how they cannot be interbred (micro not macro)? Or isn't it another example how they have moved their line in the sand?

Doesn't everything?

Most of the problem is the Linnaeus genus/species system was developed to early. It is still used but we should be aware many of the things in his classification that became common simply do not satisfy his rules. Homo Sapiens can all interbreed so no speciation. So can all dogs but the Linnaeus system has wolves and domestic dogs as different species. Commonly speaking coyotes are also different but they interbreed with all other dogs.

 

Now that is something that you and I can agree on. In fact, I have already said it twice in this thread just with different words.

 

Also, there is the matter of ring species. Given a large enough area, what would be one “kind” of critter can mate with it's neighbors. However, as you move farther away, the odds of a successful breeding drop until it is no longer possible.

 

One example are the chiclid fish of lake Tanganyika. It is actually fairly common among aquarium keepers to mix populations and end up with cross breeds but some combinations just don't ever happen.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't think the breeding in and of itself is cruelty. I think zoos in general are animal cruelty and they sicken me. I can't go through a zoo without getting ridiculously pissed off at the living conditions the animals are generally kept in and I think it is extremely cruel to put the animals under that kind of constant stress for entertainment. You take an animal like a tiger that has a range covering many square miles in the wild and you are going to pen it into small cage? The poor thing sits there and paces back and forth with no where to go while the crowd shrieks with delight. I find it sickening. 

I thought zoos were passed that these days? Not since I was a kids have I seen animals in cages. Granted their "natural" setting is rarely natural but they are quite wide open and have places to retreat if they get tired of being entertained by the passing two legged food sticks. Generally they hang around outside and watch.

In return they get to die of old age. Their food is parasite free. Their diseases and teeth problems are treated. Most of them are encouraged to mate. Absent human intellectual interests, what a life! And if they are intellectual, they can study the meat sticks.


 

Some are but others aren't. It is largely a matter of space. The Bronx Zoo has a wild animal park type of environment although to keep predation out of the picture, it is sectioned off so many of the larger animals don't get their natural range to wander around in. The Central Park Zoo is still on the old model.


 

Also, any of the larger zoos do still maintian cage environments for many of the species where they run into specific issues. You can't let cobras just slither around after all. Birds would just fly away.


 

Actually, the Central Park Zoo recently lost a cobra. They found it a couple of block away several days later. Fortunately, nobody got hurt but there are risks that zoos should not take.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

ex-minister wrote:
a_nony_mouse wrote:
For the department of evil science, maybe with a breeding program we can develop a species that can prey on elephants
Uh...humans fit that niche. I also saw a sad video of a pride of lions taking down a full grown bull. In blood tooth and claw under the watchful and loving eye of an all powerful creator. Sad

Come on. You know what I mean. Real rip and tear, tooth and claw kills. The lion thing sounds right.

Besides elephants are winning against humans by becoming tuskless. Anyone want to talk about the speed of evolution? 150 years to losing the reason people kill them and maybe only 60 years before the selective pressure became significant.

Seriously that was sort of a joke comment. Experimental evolution is a bit more doable than experimental cosmology. I'm always looking for ways to expand the experimental method. I am a fundamentalist physicist.


 

Yes, Lions can take down the big ones. Leopards can take down smaller ones. In Asia, tigers get the job done.


 

I wonder about your idea that tusks are getting shorter though. Do you have a link for that?


 

Remember that tusks never stop growing. So the most prized kills would be the oldest elephants. Hence, there should be a larger percentage in the overall population of younger elephants today than what existed a couple of centuries ago.


 

You may be right and I would love to see the link if you have it. Remember also that the ban on ivory trading has only been in place for less than half the agerage life span of elephants in the wild. If my logic is sound, the big tuskers will be back in like 20 to 30 years.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Vastet wrote:
Freedom > Safety & Security.

Anthropomorphization is amusing but not relevant.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
ex-minister wrote:
Doesn't mules, ligers, tilions, etc. blow a huge hole in the fundies insistence on "kinds" and how they cannot be interbred (micro not macro)? Or isn't it another example how they have moved their line in the sand?

Doesn't everything?

Most of the problem is the Linnaeus genus/species system was developed to early. It is still used but we should be aware many of the things in his classification that became common simply do not satisfy his rules. Homo Sapiens can all interbreed so no speciation. So can all dogs but the Linnaeus system has wolves and domestic dogs as different species. Commonly speaking coyotes are also different but they interbreed with all other dogs.

Now that is something that you and I can agree on. In fact, I have already said it twice in this thread just with different words.

I know. You never know who your audience it going to be so saying the same thing in different ways reaches more people. I debated posting at all as you had said it. So I chose a more "technical" version. Way back before the talk.origins website got all encyclopediaish it carried some of my articles. That was a very long time ago.

Quote:
Also, there is the matter of ring species. Given a large enough area, what would be one “kind” of critter can mate with it's neighbors. However, as you move farther away, the odds of a successful breeding drop until it is no longer possible.

The Dawkins concept of speciation in isolation does not mean they were separated on different continents when they drifted. It means simply far enough apart that the gene drift is "slow" and also that speciation does not have to happen it just does. It leaves open all kinds of professional publications on how slow is slow enough to permit speciation to be a possibility but since it is not required to happen it permits even more papers to be written.

Only anti-racist idiot crusaders refuse to see how human divisions occurred. If the world was all a flat plain we are promiscuous enough that differentiation would be trivial. But mountains, deserts and oceans separating us prevents homogenization. And it doesn't take even that much, just different climates for seven identified races to develop in Africa. Bantu and Zulu can interbreed they simply choose not to. I await some very interesting publications on how they got separated long ago.

Quote:
One example are the chiclid fish of lake Tanganyika. It is actually fairly common among aquarium keepers to mix populations and end up with cross breeds but some combinations just don't ever happen.

Chiclids are the example of "do not" interbreed although there is no credible reason to suggest they cannot. But it is sort of a chicken and egg problem. Does speciation lead to new behavior or does new behavior lead to speciation? The former seems obvious but how can the latter exist without the former existing first?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't think the breeding in and of itself is cruelty. I think zoos in general are animal cruelty and they sicken me. I can't go through a zoo without getting ridiculously pissed off at the living conditions the animals are generally kept in and I think it is extremely cruel to put the animals under that kind of constant stress for entertainment. You take an animal like a tiger that has a range covering many square miles in the wild and you are going to pen it into small cage? The poor thing sits there and paces back and forth with no where to go while the crowd shrieks with delight. I find it sickening. 

I thought zoos were passed that these days? Not since I was a kids have I seen animals in cages. Granted their "natural" setting is rarely natural but they are quite wide open and have places to retreat if they get tired of being entertained by the passing two legged food sticks. Generally they hang around outside and watch.

In return they get to die of old age. Their food is parasite free. Their diseases and teeth problems are treated. Most of them are encouraged to mate. Absent human intellectual interests, what a life! And if they are intellectual, they can study the meat sticks.

Some are but others aren't. It is largely a matter of space. The Bronx Zoo has a wild animal park type of environment although to keep predation out of the picture, it is sectioned off so many of the larger animals don't get their natural range to wander around in. The Central Park Zoo is still on the old model.

After I posted that I sort of remember from my 1968 visit to the San Diego zoo a sign apologizing for the cages but they would fix it real soon. Their birds were in a huge outdoor cage you walked through. I presume no predators were included. Of course as a FONZ (Friend Of the National Zoo) DC's exhibits were impeccable. Problem is lions were not in natural tall grass but on rock so they could be seen. Down here in Tampa Lowry Park is fine. My last visit to my home town Cincinnati Zoo was in the early 70s and I do remember some cages but with the same apology as the San Diego zoo.

But at to the natural "range" to wander around in, despite anthropomorphization they wander around in search of food and for no apparent other reason. The test is simple. Feed them in the wild and see if they wander at all. If not then wandering is necessary instead of natural. The answer is, they do not wander.

Quote:
Also, any of the larger zoos do still maintian cage environments for many of the species where they run into specific issues. You can't let cobras just slither around after all. Birds would just fly away.

Which is good for the birds and the cobras get chicks before they become McNuggets. That is what I am saying.

Actually, the Central Park Zoo recently lost a cobra. They found it a couple of block away several days later. Fortunately, nobody got hurt but there are risks that zoos should not take.

On the other hand the rat population where it was found was probably lower. If New Yorkers could learn to live with snakes they could greatly decrease their rat problem.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

I wonder about your idea that tusks are getting shorter though. Do you have a link for that?

Not off hand but google it. But is NO tusks at all not shorter. Surprised you haven't come across it. It was recognized decades ago. It is like cave dwellers losing eyes. In the old days tusks aided survival and mating. These day they are a cause of early death prior to many offspring. They take calories to grow so they are lost like eyes for cave dwellers as not only no benefit but a deficit.
 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Pristine earther nonsense.

Pristine earther nonsense. I'm pretty people used to say the same thing about a child born to black and white parents. Because, if it's one thing segregationists and white supremacists  can't have, is more oreos.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Vastet

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Freedom > Safety & Security.

Anthropomorphization is amusing but not relevant.

 

 

Strawman = Failure.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Dmasterman
atheist
Posts: 58
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Define

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Define unnatural.

Never happens in the wild? You mean never happens these days? Or does the claim to never have a basis in saying the Asian lion and the Asian tiger never mated before the Romans made the Asian lion extinct? (Is extincted a verb?)

As to the life of pain, is this in fact verified and if so, how? I have read of the liger and the tigon several times and have never heard of any claim of pain. The only issue expressed for the liger is in the wild the liger grows larger than necessary to eat well and so has to eat more than normal to continue to live. Food supply is not an issue in a zoo. In the wild evolution shows that predators do not grow larger than necessary to deal with their prey. And when the prey grows smaller the predators get smaller.

For the department of evil science, maybe with a breeding program we can develop a species that can prey on elephants.

===

For the record the issue is the size controlling gene is in a different sex for the lion and tiger and with this match there is no size controlling gene.

 

this video explains why it's not natural and how they live a 'pain filled life'

youtube.com/watch?v=wKYILLEdy5s