Is the chicken proof of an intelligent creator?

> It's almost like humans and chickens have evolved in this predator/prey relationship over thousands of years

Fuckin science, how does it work

Oh look, a government shill. Trying to imprint our brains with the idea that we are nothing more than retarded monkeys.

Ignorant mother f****** b****** the chicken prior to domestication lived near some bamboo if I recall correctly other type that would fruit ridiculously high amount every year or so could have been like a every few months or a couple years later anyways the huge flute food explosions made the chickens evolve such that when food was ridiculously plentiful if they made as many eggs as physically possible so the populations got tied to this non-regular fruit explosion humans kind of notice that and just give them food all the time and the chickens are like whole damn we just gotta poop baby is all the time cuz we got the food to support all these babies poop out their babies I learn this in a YouTube video

You could literally just read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article.

>The chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) is a type of domesticated fowl, a subspecies of the red junglefowl. It is one of the most common and widespread domestic animals, with a population of more than 19 billion as of 2011.[1] Humans keep chickens primarily as a source of food, consuming both their meat and their eggs.

What the f*** do you know about chickens I mean sure the GMO Frank and chickens chicken egg dye off and the s*** they live in like they already are but there are chickens everywhere there wild chickens and beyond that there are Hardy old rustic styles of chickens across the world again wild chickens everywhere you are ignorant shut the heck up

Wikipedia also says that the holocaust happened and that man landed on the moon, so I'm not believing a word of it.

I prefer to use my own brain.

>design for
It was designed for that, by farmers.

Oki dok

This is almost as bad as those australian christian tv people that went on and on about how god designed the modern banana to be perfect for humans to eat.

Domestic chickens seem dumb because they're raised with very little stimulation. Humans are the same way, according to case studies you can read about in sociology textbooks. Some turkey breeds are physically incapable of fucking.

the ancestor of domestic chickens lived fine. they stopped being bred for survival traits in captivity though. It is a subspecies of red junglefowl (pic related) like dogs are a subspecies of wolf.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_junglefowl

>Is the chicken proof of

where are the proofs

The proof is in the chicken.

They have a good point though...

which came first, the proof or the eggs?

I prefer frozen turkeys

they are non-exclusive

The pre-domesticated form the banana is full of indigestible seeds and is definitely not shaped perfectly for your hand like those retards thought.

It is, it's just evolution by artificial selection. The same thing is noticeable in almost all livestock.

It's literally an example of Evolution by artificial selection.

>tfw no domesticated durian I can get at any store cheaper than fruit grown in my neighborhood

You're an example of Evolution by artificial selection.

Great home school your kids. We definitely need more stockboys, fastfood workers and janitors. But in the unlikely event they learn to read and write, they can attend Oral Roberts University.

All humans have been since the agricultural revolution.

Who's trolling who here?

...

>almost like it was bred towards that specific purpose
FTFY

What if the creator is proof of chikkin?

Is that not evolution?

Well, the definition is:
>Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species.
So yeah, artificial selection is also evolution.

>An example of the American education system

holy shit that thing looks tasty

I keked so hard

No, turkey is perfect, you shitlord.

im a HUGE fan of eating animals and a card-carrying evangelical protestant.

That said, what the HELL is a chicken? every time i go to eat one, i wonder what the hell it is. Same with cows. its not like there are wild chickens or wild cows somewhere and we domesticated them. what the hell are they?
>god made us to eat goats, deer and fish, because thats what we have the enzymes to naturally digest.

my buddy chet (RIP CHET) used to raise fighting cocks for export to mexico. The chickens were seriously the size of wild turkeys. and they were GORGEOUS - not unlike . but much bigger plumage and more colorful hackle. kind of pheastanty looking. And they'd peck you to literal death. He told me the beaner drug lords would pay him up to 20 grand for a stud chicken. THey'd never fight those birds. just let them strut around like a trophy and fuck all the hens to make mean roosters for fighting.

Anyway the law eventually shut him down even though he was not breaking any laws. They just threatened his other businesses unless he shut down his gamecock operation. RIP chet.

Evolution is more of an an in-the-wild thing. Selective breeding works against it because it doesn't necessarily make the animal more suited to survival in its enviroment, like how some dairy cows can legit die if they're not milked anymore.

i dont think the dutch are that intelligent.

This.

While I don't necessarily believe in the theory of evolution, let us consider it hypothetically.

Evolution as described by Darwin is the result of genetic mutations causing an animal to diverge from its species and if that divergence gives it an advantage in survival, it will have a better chance of producing offspring and over a *long* period of time a new species or subspecies will emerge with these mutations being part of the species.

Selective breeding on the other hand does not create a new species, it simply passes on the most desirable chromosome characteristics in a species for some purpose, whether it be food, sport or whatever.

Selective breeding is evolution
Maybe you're thinking of natural selection

Might sound like semantics, but I'd say that selective breeding needs its own category, as evolution isn't based on any form of intent. it's all just random chance and mutation, whereas selective breeding is done with a specific end goal in mind, usually over the course of a few generations.
Selective breeding also rarely makes entirely new species. A pug can still impregnate a great dane, but there are four types of giraffes that can't successfully interbreed for example.

>as evolution isn't based on any form of intent. it's all just random chance and mutation
Is that so? Does evolution require randomness?
I wouldn't know, I never finished On the Origin of Species

Yeah. Evolution is the result of genes being passed down, with occasional mutations between parent and child. If the child is more successful then they have a better chance to breed themselves and so pass on their new, slightly different genes. If not they just die out and no species-wide change takes place.

That definition doesn't mention randomness

calm down Maupertuis

But there were wild chickens and wild cows. They've just been bred down over centuries to be easier to farm/eat.

I'm perfectly calm, I really wanted to know

Mutations are by definition random.
If a mutated cow is born, it will not be used for breeding by humans, but even if it is, it will not result in evolution because humans have not been breeding animals long enough for any macro evolution to take place.

Randomness is implied. Mutation itself is random and its not possible to choose what genes are passed on to your offspring without state of the art genetic manipulation in a lab.

No, but the banana is
behold the atheist nightmare .....

youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

Evolution is the change in the gene frequencies of a population over time. Eventually you get populations that are sufficiently different that they can no longer interbreed (and produce fertile offspring) and at that point speciation has occurred.

Evolution has 4 "forces" that drive it: selection, gene flow, genetic drift, and mutation.

Mutation while weak is what underpins it all. Mutation is where genetic diversity is generated.

Selection acts on populations that have genetic diversity. Over time the individuals that are most successful at procreating have their genes increase in frequency in the population. This is the force that selective breeding falls under. It also comes in the natural flavor.

Genetic drift causes a reduction in genetic diversity of a population. Because population sizes are not infinite random events cause genes to be lost to "accidents" which over time can effect the frequency of a gene in a population.

Gene flow is migration/emigration of individuals from one population to another. Pretty easy to see how/why this would effect the frequencies of genes in said populations.

To more directly answer your question, evolution requires randomness in the sense that there must be diversity of genes to begin with, and that much of this diversity occurs because of random mutation events. Recombination and horizontal gene transfer can also introduce new genes into the population, but that's a bit more complicated.

You have a common misconception. Evolution is not progressive, its reactive. Evolution has no goal or end state that all life is trying to achieve. Evolution is simply the genes that persist are the ones that most successfully replicate. This does not mean that "more" evolved things are necessarily better than "less" evolved organisms. For instance mitochonodria, chloroplasts, and other internal symbionts evolved from free living bacteria, and as a consequence of the arrangement have lost almost all of their genome to the point that they're only organelles now. I would not really consider that "better". But they are ultimately successful at passing those genes on.

Selective breeding is nothing more than (strong) selection. It works in exactly the same way, with the only difference being that humans are deciding which traits (genes) are most "successful" by allowing only individuals with said traits to reproduce. As opposed to natural selection where it is the environment that dictates what traits (genes) are most successful. There's really no fundamental difference.

>Selective breeding is nothing more than (strong) selection. It works in exactly the same way, with the only difference being that humans are deciding which traits (genes) are most "successful" by allowing only individuals with said traits to reproduce

Are there any concrete, well documented cases of humans creating new species through selective breeding?

I'm not certain about things like chickens or cows but most modern types of dog are descended from European wolves and as such are absolutely a new species as dogs can't interbreed with wolves at all.

Certain dogs can no longer interbreed. Dogs and wolves are considered different species as well.

Maize and teosinte as another.

Drosophila synthetica also comes to mind.

>most modern types of dog are descended from European wolves
Could you perhaps point me to a source that proves this statement?

I know that it is "common knowledge", but a scientific proof would help me believe it.

Also do domesticated dogs have any relation to wild dogs, or is that just an unrelated name.

The word dog has no valid scientific meaning. Its colloquial word that refers to several different lineages.

>Its colloquial word
No it isn't.

wtf i love jesus now

At best its a polyphyletic clade and of little value.

If you're referring to my use of the term "wild dog", I was referring to pic related.

Otherwise please clarify your post.

forgot pic xd

sounds like good business. I'm in AZ too- maybe I should start raising battle chickens.

Yes. That creator is man

>I AM THE CHICKEN GOD!

Oh you mean African wild dogs, not just a generic catch all wild dog. Yes, those are related to dogs with common a common ancestor in the organism that split into wolves and the African wild dog.

This thread is proof of Popeye's.

Don't let your fedora tip you on the way out.