APBT blood in "old time" Staffordshire bull terriers

You seriously don't have a clue do you boy.....

 

Don't even waste your time arguing with that narrow minded know it all prick.

 

You're full of cliches today, aren't you? So nothing much has changed . . .

Now if I were you, and had a clue, I probably wouldn't be stating the APBT is the same dog the Brits were fighting around the time of Independence. That is doing a serious disservice to the real dogmen on both sides of the pond. And I certainly wouldn't be following it up with the old internet hero line "form follows function" - especially when you don't really know what that means, and are merely repeating something you have read and not thought through.

The truth is, the APBT is a different breed, but - and it's a big but (haha) - those same genes that were combined to create the APBT can be found in the original breeds it came from. What may not be found are any genetic mutations (if any) endemic to a particular strain that has been inbred (or linebred) for any length of time. What may be found - though to a rarer extent - are the recessive genes commonly displayed in breeds that have been inbred and heavily linebred to express those genes (or a function related to those genes) over many generations. Think red noses, pure white or liver coats etc.

The only time a new gene can enter the gene pool is if it is brought in from outside, or a gene mutates within the gene pool. The only time a function changes is if a new gene is introduced, or there is a new mutation of said gene, or if a new combination of genes results in a different function.

So if you can't grasp the concept that this is the reason why form always comes before function, then I dare say it's hard for you to understand anything else. What it means is that, regardless of whether a particular breed has been bred exclusively for the show or pit, if two breeds come from the same lines, they will share similar gene pools and prime examples of both may be found in each breed: to wit, the fighting show dog or the conformed fighting dog. What may separate them is what I have already pointed out above: outcrossed genes, mutated genes and unique combinations of genes. The longer each breed continues along its own line and diverges from its original gene pool, the rarer it is to find similar examples of both.

Genetic form always comes before function.

 

I know your grandfather's Bull Terriers were about as game as you..... prick.

 

Wrong again, the APBT is the same dog that was being fought over here in England and Ireland. Tell me what other dogs were added to the mix if that's not the case........

The APBT is older than the Staffordshire Bull Terrier you plank.......

Like I said, the Staff is an offshoot of the British Pit Dogs (APBT) it was bred for looks hence my point form follows function.

You don't create a fighting breed from show ponies like your EBT'S and Staffs, it's the other way around you numpty. My point is true, form follows function.......

 

You have zero understanding of genetics. Zero.

You have no idea why race horses, greyhounds and humans get faster over successive generations. You have no idea why the best APBTs of modern eras could whip the dogs of yore.

You simply repeat the same flawed mantra again and again and again, hoping that somehow - somehow - the next time you repeat it, your obtuse dissertations might possibly - possibly - appear more truthful than the last.

Unlike you, I do not need insults to highlight what common sense already knows.

Does anyone here - anyone - believe the modern American Pit Bull Terrier is the same dog as the British pit dogs (whatever they were) of the 18th century?

Anyone? And if so, what is your reasoning for believing that 300 years (or more) of genetic selection has not altered said breed one iota?

How did the wolf turn into the poodle if genetic selection played no part in the evolution of the domestic dog?

 

Please tell me again what was added to the mix..... I guess I'll be in for a long wait.....

Funny how you skipped over my other points regarding the Staff, owned.....

 

How happy is the moron,
Who doesn't give a damn.
I wish I was a moron,
My dog - perhaps I am!

 

I got to go with EBT''s reasoning on this one. The evolutionary tree has split branches to it. Strains that went on to become different in appearance over centuries, completely different yet pretty much anatomically the same. Some branches died off while others went on to create more branches. Genetic redirection and selective breeding have sped up the process even faster since humans started creating specific breeds. At least that's always been my understanding of it.

Found a video that shows how fast breeds can change. While nothing may have been added to the mix, centuries of evolution has made them the same in some aspects still but very much different in most every other aspect.

 

The APBT has been bred for performance alone, it's the pit that has shaped it.

Show dogs are a bad example to use for obvious reasons. In what way are the dogs of today different to the dogs of the past, can you explain any physical differences????

 

I own that ass......

 

I just posted a video that clearly shows the physical differences.

I'm not debating the difference between the APBT now and then I was saying genetic selection plays a huge role IMO. When I said strains, I was referring to canines as a whole not breed strains. Wolves. Coyotes, fox, dogs etc all are canines but they are all different from each other on the evolutionary tree I was referring to.

The video was just showing how much faster we were able to do it by selective breeding is all. It also answers your question it what ways are they different, past and present. That''s exactly what the video is showing or didn't you watch it?

 

Tbh I didn't watch the video. The APBT has the same appearance of the dogs that were back in Britain. My point that form follows function is true regarding this breed.

You don't get fighting dogs from show ponies, it's the other way around.

 

You own your own ignorance. If you can make a pomeranian out of a wolf, you can make a fighting dog out of anything if you selectively breed for long enough and let evolution (genetic divergence) do its thing. Yeah, "genetic divergence" is a thing - look it up (of course you won't, because you wouldn't recognise it even if you knew what you were looking for).

The standardised German shepherd is just over 100 years old, yet selective breeding and genetic isolation has given us the American show line, the West German show line, the West German working line, DDR working line, the Czech working . . . and I'm not even going to start on all the different strains of Belgian and Dutch shepherds which came from the same genetic pool as the German shepherd, each with unique conformations and functions.

You have no understanding of how these things work. You don't even have a proper grasp of the English language: how can a "mix" not have a mix, as you infer?

How many different lines/strains of APBT are there . . . and yet you claim there is just one! Same goes for all the British fighting dogs throughout history - the weight classes, the conformations, the "mix", the various rules that applied and evolved regionally . . . these were all the same dog - the American Pit Bull Terrier, no less! - that has not changed at all over the centuries, according to you.

Pig ignorance.

Jesse Owens' 100m gold medal time at the 1936 Olympics was 10.3. Usain Bolt has run 9.58 - an incredible difference!. And yet, they are just two black men as far as you are concerned. "Form follows function" - what a stupid cliche to cling to.

You think you own something? You own a keyboard - that's it.

 

Did Jesse Owens run on the same track with the same equipment that Bolt ran with you idiot......

I can't believe you're giving those two athletes as examples.....

I'll ask you again for the hundredth time, in what way are the dogs of today different from the dogs of the past...

 

I know you ain't asking me, but I'd say we've got a lot less white dogs now. Far more red. They're leaner, faster, and lighter on their feet. You've got a more standardized look today compared to the much larger or vastly smaller dogs of the old days. They only really old strain still knocking about really is the Colby dogs. Of which there aren't that many fast lane dogs. Pit dogs of today are also far more inbred.

 

You're blind as well as deaf and dumb, aren't you? AGK has given you examples. I've given you examples. Others here have given you examples. But you're you're just a bit too slow to catch on . . .

. . . S o , I w i l l s a y i t s l o w l y . . . O r g a n i s m s e v o l v e t h r o u g h s e l e c t i v e b r e e d i n g a n d g e n e t i c d i v e r g e n c e .

E v e r y o n e h e r e u n d e r s t a n d s t h i s b u t y o u . I t a p p e a r s y o u a r e a l o w e r l i f e f o r m a n d h a v e n o t r e a c h e d t h e l e v e l o f c o m p r h e n s i o n o f t h e a v e r a g e g a m e - d o g r e a d e r . H a v e s o m e p r i m o d i a l s o u p - i t ' s y u m m y .

 

There was red dogs back over the pond. The only difference is the bigger selection that the Yanks had to play with. Of course the dogs have improved with time, they would be doing something wrong if they haven't.

The point I was trying to make that went straight over the two empty heads is that the APBT is the original Pit Dog that was used in the British Isles, not the Staff...

 

Blind to what you idiot?? You believe the APBT came from the Staff, you really are clueless.....

 

Start reading - and keep reading - chump. This bloke knows what he is talking about - you do not: http://www.game-dog.com/index.php?t...dshire-bull-terriers.56248/page-2#post-689038

(It is clear you have not even given this thread a precursory glance. Though I suspect if you can hardly string together more than a coherent sentence in most of your posts - which is the case - then remedial comprehension is moot.)

Does anyone else want to argue that the Staffy and APBT did not evolve from the same gene pool and whose common ancestors were the pit dogs of the British Isles? No, I didn't think so.

Who wants to argue that the "name" American Pit Bull Terrier evolved before the "name" Staffordshire Terrier (regardless of what those names represented)? See above. But isn't it interesting that the showline APBT was officialy named the "American Staffordshire Terrier" by the AKC a year after the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was recognised by the KC? Why would the AKC name the APBT the "American Staffordshire Bull Terrier" if it was not commonly held at the time that the APBT evolved from - among others - the Black country dogs of England?

That the APBT is genetically related to the Staffordshire Terrier is beyond doubt. Just as there is not a chance in hell the modern APBT is the same dog that fought 200 years ago. Not least because the bull and terrier wasn't even a single breed back then - just as the APBT is far from standardised today (despite the "breed standard"). Bull and terriers were made up of all types and strains before distinct lines started to evolve - and continued to evolve across continents.

However, you probably haven't manged to keep up this far, so all these points are lost. At least others here may find this of use - though I suspect I am preaching to the converted. Because they can read.