Talk:Jacob sheep/Archive 1

Hoof Care

Our Jacob Sheep need their hooves trimmed every three months. They are done by our farrier every other time we have our horses done. P Cottontail 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Primitive"

If the Jacob Sheep Breeders Association uses the term "primitive", that's good enough for me. See the 4th paragraph.Novangelis (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "primitive" in livestock circles is different (and more vaguely defined) than the use of the same word in scientific circles. While in scientific circles it may be used to compare the complexity of different species, in livestock circles it is used to compare breeds within the same species, and even populations within the same breed. Which is where I think the confusion in this forum lies. The argument is over the use of the term as though it were being used scientifically. It isn't. That said, in livestock circles, "primitive" tends to mean a breed that can survive without human intervention if need be, though the specifics of the definition vary depending on who you talk to. See [1] for one definition.

That said, because "primitive" is clearly misleading, I have changed all instances of the term in this article to "unimproved," the term used in the Jacob Sheep article by the Department of Animal Science at Oklahoma State. [2]. This term is equally correct, more descriptive (suggesting less selection for specific traits on the part of breeders), and hopefully less misleading. --CantonDem (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Novangelis

It's not good enough for those who hold to the scientific standards invented by Christians (not atheists such as yourself) Novagelis, the known troll, who stalks those who rebuke him on Yahoo Answers. How arrogant of you and anti-scientific of you to think that whatever is good for you is good for everyone else. How careless of truth you are with that attitude.

That an association that tends to Jacob's Sheep calls them primitive (and I'm really sure you've counted everyone who says they are) is not scientific evidence that they are primitive. You display your poor understanding of what science is and your childish attitude of tit for tat by finding arbitrary reference to back up whatever you say rather than scientific evidence. If you can repeat an experiment that shows Jacob's Sheep let alone any other kind of animals are "primitive" to other sheep and in what way they are "primitive", go ahead and do so. Stop trolling, stop vandalizing, stop spreading propaganda, stop seeking revenge merely because you were exposed repeatedly as trolling on Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia. And stop being anti-scientific.Starfire777 (talk)!

It's not just the breeder's assc. (though it doesn't get more uncontroversial than that, breed standards are very slow to change), it's several reliable book references such as Storey's Guide that I added. Please do not remove verified factual material. VanTucky 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because You Said So Vantucky

"It's not just the breeder's assc. (though it doesn't get more uncontroversial than that"

Because you said so. Expert on Jacob Sheep's primitiveness, how does your claim that it isn't controversial negate the fact there there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, NOR ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for Jacob Sheep justify calling them "primitive"? Second, since when is a thing true merely because it's uncrontroversial? Third, if it is being repeatedly disputed by Starfire777 then why are you saying it's not controversial? Fourth, since when has the theory of evolution (which that weasel word "primitive" is alluding to) not been controversial? Using your own logic then any claim that a thing has evolved on a Wikipedia encyclopedic entry SHOULD HAVE A NEUTRALITY DISPUTE LABEL. What's with your bias?

Learn what logic and evidence means. Neither means, "Whatever Vantucky says".

"breed standards are very slow to change),"

And this has what to do with the unproven claim that Jacob Sheep are primitive how? Can you make sense? And do you have a reference (hurry and find some arbitrary one) for that claim either? Amazing how Darwinists can get away with saying anything is true and not needing a reference, and when a creationist comes along and points that out, points out that they are breaking their own sacred law on Wikipedia, the creationist get persecuted and the Darwinist exalted.

"it's several reliable book references such as Storey's Guide that I added."

RELIABLE BECAUSE YOU SAID SO. Vantucky, where are your references for the reliability of your references?

"Please do not remove verified factual material."

VERIFIED BECAUSE YOU SAID SO. WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES FOR YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN VERIFIED VANTUCKY. WHERE ARE THE CITATIONS THE QUOTES FROM YOUR BOOKS SHOWING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE VERIFIED VANTUCKY?

And it's kinda harder for Starfire777 to make the issue controversial now that you and your Darwinist friends have blocked him isn't it? Ooopsie? As you and your friends say including the owners of Wikipedia itself, "Wikipedia is not about truth". And since it's NOT ABOUT RELIABILITY (yep: CONTRADICTION), then it cannot be trusted. Stop the harassment and personal attacks against creationists and demanding that they obey your rules while ignoring that some of them contradict the Bible's rules which they are to obey over the rules of men when there is a conflict.

And finally, I wonder why you Darwinists do not put "primitive" on the Jacob Sheep article IN BRACKETS. Afraid someone else besides me and Starfire might learn what primitive means and realize you're weasel-wording and have aggressively POV pushing?

God bless you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.26.119 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Want Some References That There Is No Such Thing As A Primitive Life Form?

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." - Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." - Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'." - Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

"Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to." - Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, 7-8 May 1983, Magazine, p. 3

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man." - John Reader, photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links", "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, ...He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig's tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or 'Piltdown Man,' the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the 'earliest Englishman'. "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'" - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28, April 1983, p. 199

"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution." - Pierre-Paul Grassé (University of Paris and past-President, French Academie des Sciences) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well." - Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28

"And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." - Dr. Isaac Asimov, biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author,

"In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even." - Dr. Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10

"Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments. No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read." - R.E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error", "Anthropological Journal of Canada" vol.19 (3), 1981, p.9-29

"All the above methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history.... It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long term radiological `clock'. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists..." - W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, Calif. Polytechnic State Univ., in "The Science of Evolution", Macmillan, N.Y. 1977, p. 82, 84)

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." - J. E. O'Rourks, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great conmen, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." - Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

The evolutionist Loren Eiseley wrote a book exposing his hero Charles Darwin as being a credit thief who stole his idea of natural selection from Edward Blyth, a creation scientist. He spun this creationist's theory into a negative destructive one that is not accepted by most modern evolutionists. Ironically, Blyth's version is accepted, however, Blyth is not given credit by them either. - Eternian

ENJOY THE REFERENCES