Debunk this creationist argument

[Joe]

An aside: A flock of sheep is the perfect argument against survival of the fittest. Did you know that sheep cannot survive for long without human protection? Sheep cannot fight, they don't run well. About the only defense they're good at is their defense against evolution. So, if animals evolved millions of years before people, how did sheep survive? In New Zealand, certain breeds of sheep will die from heat if they are not sheared annually. Who sheared these sheep before humans came along?

Taken from this article.

Forget the fact that even if this is true, he still has to account for every other species which can in fact be shown to have evolved through survival of the fittest. Hasty generalization.

How do you debunk this argument? My best guess would be that the sheep we have today have been bred down from their more-sufficient ancestors to be more easily domesticated by humans.

[Frank Hipper]

Yup.
Show us the wild ancestor of sheep, and you'd have an adapted, perfectly survivable species. It's the intervention of millenia of man's selective breeding for desired characteristics that have given us sheep

In more ways than one?

These people never cease to amaze with their dishonesty, do they?

[Dalton]

Exxxxxx-actly! Domestication. Your typical housedog isn't very self-sufficient either.

[Colonel Olrik]

My best guess would be that the sheep we have today have been bred down from their more-sufficient ancestors to be more easily domesticated by humans.

And you would be correct. Like cows and corn, the fat, easy going sheep is a human made variation of a very different animal.

edit: I just read the entire article. God, what a fucking moron. He would have his ass handed to him in a debate here. I'd like to be the one delivering.

[Warspite]

Wow, this is new, I didn't know sheep were native Kiwis...

[Drooling Iguana]

From the article:

The human brain is so much more complex than a computer's. Still, some people believe that if pond scum mixes for billions of years, a human mind will evolve. People who believe the fantasy of evolution are still stuck in the pond. It's interesting that if the survival of the fittest is how we came into existence, then it just so happened that both a MALE and a FEMALE of each species happened to be the fittest at the same time, in the same generation, and happened to live close enough together to have a few drinks and form a union. All by chance.

This made me laugh out loud. You know, when people refer to males and femals as being different species, it's usually indended to be a joke. Males and females did not evolve independantly. I'm not sure if he's awaye of this, but a single couple can produce both male and female offspring. Males can have sisters, and females can have brothers.

[Andrew J.]

My cat comes running when he hears the can-opener. Since there are no can-openers on the wild, this trait cannot have come from natural selection and evolution is false.[/moron]

Just rephrase an argument in the most ridiculous way possible; it may not always win, but it's damn sure funny!

[Superman]

This is a completely stupid argument to use in defense of creationism. Look at the domesticated and wild turkey. Domesticated turkeys are very stupid and cannot survive without human protection. They have even been known to look up in a rainstorm and drown. It's almost as if we have domesticated the intelligence right out of them. Wild turkeys, on the other hand, are quite intelligent. Ask anyone who hunts for wild turkeys; they do not have much in common with their domesticated counterpart even though they are members of the same species. This is the same situation with sheep.

I am forced to conclude that author of that article is a complete moron.

[Darth Wong]

Domestication is actually an example of applied evolution theory! What a bunch of idiots.

And as for male/female, that is also an evolutionary advantage, since a two-gender species has more variability than a one-gender species. If you think in military terms, combined-arms warfare is more effective than a single-unit rush. Similarly, the differing characteristics of the male and female create a social group with more widely varies capabilities, hence better survivability overall.

[lgot]

Not to say that , Wong, he seems to thing fittest = Strongest.
Sheep can not fight ? So what ? To survive they just have to reproduce much easier than the carnivores that hunt a sheep. They have a adaptation to Cold - after all, we need sheeps for that, a adaptation for herbivore food, they are sociable, so the numbers protect then, etc...
The most powerful predator fish, The white shark is in danger of extiction because he is not adapted to reproduce as fast and as much as sardine, which are not adapted to hunt down like him...
Oh, such Variation of the species...

[NapoleonGH]

basically same as what everyone has been saying. He is refering to modern domesticated breeds which had special, artifiical selection, to make them what they are today. The wild sheep most certainly would have been able to survive back then in its native habitat (somewhere in mesopotamia probable.

[Queeb Salaron]

It's actually funny to think of self-sufficient barnyard animals. I could imagine a wild cow, for example. But yeah, those kinds of animals have DEFINITELY been bread out of their survival instincts. I mean, we've been herding sheep for thousands of years, and cattle for about as long. As much as I'd hate to say it, it's almost like when Americans brought slaves over from Africa. Show me a man whose ancestors were tribal Nigerian who still knows how to hunt to survive. (Of course, there are other ethnical examples... Africa just sprung to mind.)

[NapoleonGH]

the cow was actually the last of the modern animals to be domesticated because it was so wild, so aggressive, and generally ornary. Just think, Bull in a bullfight, or running of the bulls. And that is probably the general disposition of wild cows.