SkepticLance

To iNow I have met perhaps 2 pit bulls in my life. I kept my distance and there was no nastiness. This means nothing. As I told you before, I suspect that only 0.01% of interactions with pit bulls would result in serious attacks. However, 0.01% is too many. I think the NZ government approach is the best one - no breeding. To take a pit bull off its owner and put it down would be too cruel, especially to a loving owner. However, I do not think that breeding dogs that are genetically designed to be aggressive is very responsible. A dog lover can love a French poodle or other less aggressive breed just as much.

This thread has come up with a rather silly sub-theme of over-population catastrophism. Let me nail this. The world population is 6.5 billion and growing. However, human fertility is dropping quite rapidly, as a result of the widespread use of contraception. Third world nations had an average fertility of 5.5 offspring per woman only 50 years ago, and today it is 2.5 and falling. Within a few decades, it will be less than 2, and global population will begin to fall. In the west, fertility is already less than 2. In the United States, the only thing supporting population growth is a million plus immigrants per year. All the data needed to explore this idea can be found on the United Nations web site. http://www.un.org/popin Within another 50 years, the world population will top out at 9 billion and start falling. This is the mean prediction from a series of projections.

To iNow If I were to guess, I would say that 99.99% of interactions would pit bulls would result in no physical harm to any human. However, 0.01% is still too much. 66 deaths in 20 years is 66 deaths too many.

There is a hell of a lot of wishful thinking in this thread, by dog lovers who do not like to believe that any breed can be inherently nasty. There are two clear cut facts about pit bulls. 1. They were bred to be aggressive, as a fighting dog, fighting and killing other dogs. 2. They are responsible for serious attacks on humans, resulting in maiming and fatalities, at a rate of almost double that of the next worst breed. All the rest is interpretation, and often coloured by emotion rather than hard logic. To me, the logic is clear cut. They were bred to be what they are : nasty, aggressive killers. This is in their genes, as a result of breeding. It is not primarily the result of training and upbringing. Sure, how an owner treats his/her dog has a profound effect on their behaviour. But there are heaps of case histories of pit bulls raised in a caring and loving home which unpredictably turned nasty. A simple google search will show lots of such cases.

lucaspa said : Sorry, SkepticLance, but you are being "naughty". You are applying a new hypothesis: that the distribution of the unkowns will follow the knowns. That is what you call "probability". But you don't know this. So you can't try to pass your hypothesis off as supported and as "fact". As you said: "This cannot be guaranteed, but simple logic suggests that it is most probable. The reason some breeds are 'unknown' is simply that they were not identified. This will not very likely change the overall picture, and you know it." It would appear that I have injured your pride. This was not my intent - just making a point. Let me argue from analogy. Imagine you, as a scientist, are required to interpret data on human mortality. Data from a bunch of deaths are collected. Half of the causes of death are clearly defined by autopsy, and the other half are not. Of the half identified, 40% are cardiovascular events, 25% cancers, and the rest a mix of other causes. Do you now conclude that cardiovascular events are not major causes of deaths, since identified cardiovascular events make up only 20% of the total? No, you would probably tend to assume that they made up around 40% of the undiagnosed deaths as well as the diagnosed, though you would be careful how you worded that interpretation. In the case of the dog attacks, half of the breeds were not identified. You cannot argue that the numbers of unidentified breeds show pit bulls were not major offenders. The pit bulls were by far the biggest offenders in the identified breeds, and it is very likely that they were also the largest offenders in the unidentified breeds, though this is not certain - just very likely. To argue the way you do is very poor logic. Probably the best way to look at it is to exclude the unidentified group, and concentrate on those that were identified.

ecoli said More likely then not, if we just play around and introduce random bits of DNA into the code, either nothing will happen or the animal will never develop into a viable adult. A bit late to start worrying about that. In research laboratories, literally hundreds of such modifications have already been carried out. Hell, it is now a standard research tool. People wanting to know what a particular gene does will take mice and knock out that gene to see what happens. Alternately, they will introduce a new gene to see the effect. Lots of DNA from one species has been placed into a second species, and the results tested. Of course, we get Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and lots of other nutters vehemently opposing it. So far, no serious harm has resulted, and there is no indication that it ever will.

There is no doubt that the way dogs are raised has a profound effect on their tendency to be aggressive. This applies to pit bulls as well as any other breed. However, that is not the question. The question is : are pit bulls more likely to attack and kill, compared to most other dog breeds? Answer : yes. This is so absolutely clear cut that I am amazed that anyone seeks to query it. The figure of 66 people killed in 20 years is, of course, the merest tip of the iceberg. For every person actually killed, there will be hundreds attacked. For every human attacked, there will be dozens of dogs attacked. Pit bulls were originally bred as fighting dogs - to fight other dogs, and this is reflected by their tendency to attack, maim, and kill other dogs. The New Zealand government placed a ban on the breeding of pit bulls. I believe that was fully justified.

To iNow I am not sure that your approach can properly be called scientific. You are dealing with very small numbers of people and experiences here, in your survey. The references DrDNA and I provided deal with dog attacks across the entire country. Total numbers of attacks are in the thousands. That rather makes a very small scale survey a bit misleading, don't you agree? My reference showed that between 1979 and 1998 in the United States, 66 people were killed by attacks from pit bulls, while the next worst (Rottweilers) killed only 39. This kind of data is surely more valid?

Moving DNA from one organism to another is now commonplace. It has even been done by Mother Nature herself, with snake DNA being found inside a local rodent genome. This appears to have been carried by a retrovirus, and is now passed on from rodent generation to generation. There is no reason in theory why the number of genes implanted cannot be increased indefinitely, till a new organism is formed that is half one, half another. It would take care, and more understanding of physiology than we now have, but seems doable.

To iNow I suggest you read the excellent posts that DrDNA has put up. Pit bulls are being selected because they are much more aggressive and worse killers than other dog breeds. The data shows this. If you are a good enough scientist, you will accept the data and agree.

iNow said If they do something like rip off an arm, it's the alpha pack leaders fault for failing to properly train and control their subordinate pack member. Does this explain why statistics show they are by far the biggest killer? To lucaspa I have no emotional bent in relation to pit bulls, except for the emotional desire to reveal the truth. I have never been bitten by a pit bull, and in fact, hardly ever touched one. I have an emotional bent towards German Shepherds, who are attractive looking, highly intelligent and highly loyal animals. I was a bit distressed to see them as number 3 on the list of breeds killing humans. You said So let's look at the last line: number of deaths for which the breed is unknown. The total there for the entire time period is 238. That is 6 more than the total for the breeds listed (232). This can obviously skew the data away from pit bulls to #2 -5 in the list. So you have to take the conclusion with a healthy bit of skepticism because the unknown breed can change the picture. Tut tut lucaspa. For someone who claims to be a good scientist, you are being very naughty. Look at the data again and think about it. The highest probability is that the unknown breeds are represented in a proportion that reflects the known breeds, at least to some degree. This cannot be guaranteed, but simple logic suggests that it is most probable. The reason some breeds are 'unknown' is simply that they were not identified. This will not very likely change the overall picture, and you know it. Of the known breeds, pit bulls were by far the worst. They are not strictly, a single breed, but represent a group of very similar dogs, bred for fighting. It is this breeding that makes them dangerous. Incidentally, for dog lovers, it may be worth noting that, for every human attacked and killed by pit bulls, many dogs are attacked and killed. If you love dogs, you should resist the breeding and widespread ownership of pit bulls.

To iNow In spite of DrDNA's comment, there is no hard feeling either side of this discussion. Obviously I disagree with you, but I quite enjoy a good argument, so that just leaves me feeling the pleasure of the discussion. 3.5 deaths per year? Yes, but even one preventable death is too many. And that ignores the much larger numbers of people maimed and traumatized by dog attacks. There are so many lovely breeds of dog available. Why do we need one proven to be aggressive and an occasional killer?

Not being heated here - just factual. Following the demand by lucaspa and iNow for data, I checked google again. A study of dog attack related fatalities in the United States between 1979 and 1998 reveals pit bulls the worst at 66 deaths, and rottweilers second at 39. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

To iNow Yes, I admit this is not a field in which I am expert. However, I began the 'pit bull' discussion by mentioning the NZ situation in which a number of experts advised the government to ban breeding of 5 breeds of dogs, because they were bred to be aggressive and were thus dangerous. I am kinda forced to continue. You claim I have not supplied data to show pit blls are dangerous. You are correct, since I have not seen such data - just items in the newspaper on pit bull attacks and fatalities coming from such attacks, and comments by experts. Of course, you have not quoted any data either - making you equally culpable. There is no doubt that pit bulls have been behind many attacks, and many human fatalities. The example I quoted was a previously docile family pet that inexplicably attacked and killed a child. This appears to be quite typical. The newspaper accounts I have read often mention how it appears to be that an attack is the result of a totally unpredictable change of dog behaviour, from friendly to murderous. There have been more human fatalities in NZ from pit bull attacks than from any other breed, and the pit bull is a minority breed (newspaper account). Assuming the newspaper is right, then that makes them dangerous. Personally, I think that any breeder who selects for aggressive behaviour is a total asshole and, if their dogs kill someone, that person should be considered to be the equivalent of someone guilty of manslaughter. Such breeding is wrong, and the results should not be permitted to produce progeny.

There is also a common misconception that mutations appear to guide directional natural selection just in time to do the job. In fact, any population contains within its gene pool numerous mutations which do not really perform any useful function. However, with a change in environment, previously useless mutant genes may become useful. In that case, natural selection acts to increase their frequency in the gene pool. For example: the sickle cell anemia mutant gene - normally harmful. If malaria is present in the population, it may become useful and be slected for.

The male mammalian embryo begins making testosterone very early in development, and this helps to guide 'maleness' instead of the opposite. This is vital, since the mother has oestrogen in her blood in abundance, some of which 'leaks' across to the embryo. Only lots of testosterone from that early time can compensate. It has been suggested that, with repeated pregnancies with male offspring, the mother will generate antibodies against the mass of testosterone. That is why human males born after a bunch of brothers are more likely to be homosexual.

To iNow Your response appears to me to be extremely emotional. Here in New Zealand, laws were passed against the breeding of pit bulls because of a number of attacks including several fatalities, with people being killed. As I said before, if the majority of pit bulls are docile, but one in a hundred is a killer, that is one too many. I did a belated googe search under "pit bull"+"fatal attack" and came up with 4300 hits. A typical item is below. http://www.dogiee.com/blog/family-pet-pit-bull-killed-young-boy/ In spite of the purely emotional response from pit bull loving people, pit bulls are dangerous.

Actually, there is nothing new about the alcohol/breast cancer link. This has been shown before, and the latest study is just confirmation. The results can, of course, be misused. Let me put it into perspective. Define a standard alcoholic drink as a large glass of wine, or the equivalent in other alcoholic drink. Consumed on a daily basis, each large glass increases risk by just over 2%. Among women, the lifetime risk of breast cancer is 9% on average. Thus, if a woman drinks a full bottle of wine per day (4 glasses) or the equivalent, she doubles her risk. That is, her lifetime risk becomes 18% or less than 1 in 5. Since most breast cancer these days is non lethal, the consumption of alcohol is not quite the death sentence that some people will make it out to be.

To lucaspa Re your repeated assertions that pit bulls are good family pet dogs. May I ask what your emotional bent is? You sound like a dog owner who happens to have a pit bull, and must defend its reputation. While I admit not having the data at my finger tips, I remember enough news reports of attacks to know that pit bulls are unusually aggressive and can be very nasty. The descriptions of those attacks are of an animal that does not give up. In other words, it carries through the attack until the victim is either rescued or dead. German shepherds may bite, but that is not the same as a lethal attack. They are much more likely to take a chunk out of the victim and then back off. I can remember several occasions here in NZ where pit bulls have killed people. I can not remember a single case of a German shepherd doing that, though many where a German shepherd bites. And there are a lot more German shepherds here than pit bulls.

To quote the Wiki reference posted by cat. Ebola hemorrhagic fever is potentially lethal and encompasses a range of symptoms including vomiting, diarrhea, general body pain, internal and external bleeding, and fever. Mortality rates are generally high, ranging from 50% - 90%, with the cause of death usually due to hypovolemic shock or organ failure. It is also worth noting that the probable carrier is bats, and possibly the very common fruit bat. Outbreaks appear kind of 'out of the blue' with no warning. It may be due to a person killing a fruitbat for food, and getting bat blood in contact with an open wound. Once one person goes down, it is easily transmitted to others. This makes it hard to control. As long as there are bats flying around, there will be Ebola.

Just a comment on human rape. Most of our recent evolutionary change has occurred over a few hundred thousands of years, in which our ancestors lived tribal, hunter gatherer lifestyles. In that tribal setting, if a male were to rape a female, he stands a pretty good chance of being killed by that female's father/brother/boyfriend/husband or other concerned male. Even if he survives, the rapist may be exiled from the tribe. The paltry 'reward' in evolutionary terms is a very slight chance of progeny that survives. Thus evolution would serve to discourage rape as a reproductive strategy. However, there is a situation where rape may be a useful reproductive strategy. That is where the female being raped is either a member of an enemy tribe, overcome in battle, or a slave taken captive after such a battle. Rape of proper members of one's own tribe is counter-productive. Rape of the 'enemy' would be socially sanctioned and may lead to successful reproduction. In the modern context, we see that in the massive numbers of rapes when one nation is conquered by another. German soldiers raped widely in their WWII conquered territories, as did the allies when they marched into Germany. Japan's 'comfort women' are another example.

lucaspa said Now you said: "They are not especially trained for intelligence. Just aggressive fighting tendency." Whoops. I made a slip of the keyboard. I should have written : "not especially bred for intelligence." That changes the whole point. German shepherds etc are intelligent, and trainable to a degree that some breeds are not. Pit bulls are bred to be aggressive. In other words, it is in their genes. This makes them dangerous. Sure, some can be good family dogs. However, it takes only one in a hundred to attack and kill a baby to make the whole damn breed too dangerous to have around. Here in NZ, pit bulls have attacked and killed several people (mostly infants, but at least two adults) in the last decade. Does not sound much, but as a percentage of the number of pit bulls around, it makes them many times more dangerous than a Rottweiler. The experts who advise the government said pit bulls, and several other breeds, were too dangerous to permit to breed. I trust their expert opinions far more than yours.

To lucaspa Your point is correct, but so is mine. There are certain breeds with the potential for complex training and aggressive action, which are not necessarily aggressive in innocent situations. A German Shepherd or Rotweiler is highly intelligent, and can be trained to become either gentle family dog, able to play with children without harm, or alternately, they can be trained to be extremely effective guard or attack dogs. On the other hand, there are breeds that are just plain aggro. They are not especially trained for intelligence. Just aggressive fighting tendency. Pit Bulls are an example. Here in NZ, the government drew up a list of (I think this number is right, but I am going from memory) five breeds that are not now permitted to be bred in this country, due to their aggressive natures. The Pit Bull Terrior is one of them. The government almost banned them entirely, but a lobby group of dog lovers got them to back down, and merely prohibit breeding.

This idea that gals practise 'sex' befor epuberty does not sit well with me. I have an alternative theory. This is based on the observation that : Guys hunt status Gals hunt beauty My theory states that these two gender specific behaviours are now instinctive, though instigated by sex hormones, and have been programmed into our species by a million years of evolution. Reason : Females in their prime reproductive age (teens and twenties) are strongly attracted to high status males, so it makes reproductive sense for males to seek maximal status. Males of any age are strongly attracted to beautiful females, so it makes reproductive sense for females to seek maximal beauty. Since this is based on sex hormones : 1. There is some gender cross over. Some males seek to make themselves better looking and some females seek status. This is because both genders have both sex hormones. However, as a generalisation, it is mostly gender specific as above. 2. The behaviours reach their greatest power and influence during the years that sex hormones are at their peak. Teens and twenties. Before puberty these behaviours are present, but do not consitute 'practising' sex. They are present because, even in prepubescent times, females have more female hormone, and males have more male hormone. Young females practise dressing up, and putting on mother's makeup. Young males engage in status games such as 'play' wrestling. Males will do almost anything to gain status, including painful and dangerous activities, such as racing high powered street cars. Females will do almost anything to gain beauty including hours of shopping, hours at the hairdresser, hours putting on makeup etc. Our fantasies reflect this. The prime fantasy during teens and twenties involves sex/romance. However, the second most powerful fantasy for males is gaining status - becoming the hero, the guy everyone looks up to. For females the second most powerful fantasy is becoming utterly beautiful - the femme fatale. My theory states that this behaviour has become so important that evolution has turned it into an instinct, programmed into our genes. It operates even when no member of the opposite gender is there to observe the results, so the behaviour has become virtually independent of sex.

Zep Your queries sound a bit like someone who has been exposed to the anti-GM propaganda. I am not going to try to answer all your queries, since it would take all day, and I am about to go off on a business trip - will be out of circulation for a bit. Just as a for instance, I will reply to the honey bee example. This is the latest insinuation from the anti-GM people - that the current outbreaks of honey bee colony collapse are related to GM crops. Since no-one knows for sure what the cause is, it is hard to rebut the insinuation. Latest idea is that an alien virus from Australia is the cause. While this may not prove to be the problem, it is more likely that a widespread problem is caused by a new virus, and than by a crop technique that occurs in localised geographic areas. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1146498