Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually...Darwin was a raging racist. Evolution smacks of eugenics. So yeah...he did think that black people were more closely related to apes.
Now this is the stupid comment. Darwin had nothing to do with racism. Maybe his fellow sciencetist Huxly, but darwin only could comment on what he saw and nothing more. No one even today can go to Africa or watch a TV documentary or read a text book and say that the blacks are not closer to the ape than others. It's simply observed for what it is. Evolution has nothing to do with racism. It's not moral or immoral, but is anything it has no morals. It's a function in the evolution system for selecting better options of any lifeform willing to take the chances.
This has nothing to do with insensitive or racial. If you have issues with it then perhaps you should take it up with the anthropologists or paleotologist who illustrate their fossil findings for us. I'm only commenting on what I read and see in science journals. Nobody here can pretend they are not knowing what I'm refering to. Itt's everywhere.
That's simply not true. The late Stephen Jay Gould wrote about many of the earlier writings from decades ago which tried to portray black people as well as Jews as being inferior and he tore those arguments to shreds. That's a very outdated point of view and not one that is part of mainstream scientific thinking in the twentyfirst century. For anyone who thinks that black people are somehow inferior I have two words for you: President Obama.
No, it doesn't. The Eugenics movement took a sound scientific principle from biology and used it as justification for their own cruddy political motivations.
Yes Eugenics was used in the wrong science sense with Nazi exterminations, but poplutation control is another matter. If humans can't stop the world's overpopulation then something has to be established to handle it.[/QUOTE=Dane_in_LA]If racially motivated genocide and attempts at keeping "undesireables" from procreating had only popped up after the publication of ToS, you might have had the tiniest bit of a point. [/quote]My nieghbor has a bumper sticker that says, "I support the use of spaying and neutering for Welfare Recipients" Some time down the road these hard questions will be asked again and some programs will get brought to life again whether we like it or not. Again, no bad meaning, just hard look at a future reality of this world.
a specie would be most anything that is different kind of thing than another.
Like, I'm human, that is my specie.
frogs are a totally different specie.
Now i might take a bunch of frogs and vie a controlled breading program, come up with a frog of a new color or with a different looking leg and I guess it might be considered a new specie too.
A controlled "breading" program could make a very tasty frog.
= No one even today can go to Africa or watch a TV documentary or read a text book and say that the blacks are not closer to the ape than others. It's simply observed for what it is.
Wow, please remove yourself from the 19th century and join the rest of us in the 21st century!
A species is defined as an individual belonging to a group of organisms having common characteristics and are capable of mating with one another and producing offspring.
For instance if a dog and a cat mated, there would be no dats or cogs produced....Just a lot of claw marks on the poor dog.
Well, yeah, but... Tigers and Lions can mate and produce offspring, for instance.
Well, yeah, but... Tigers and Lions can mate and produce offspring, for instance.
That's true. However, although lions and tigers do belong to the same genus (Panthera), but they are of unrelated species. When interbred, the offspring become either tigons or ligers. Female tigons or ligers can be reproductive, but the males are almost always sterile. Meaning that ligers or tigons not capable of reproducing more ligers or tigons. They are hybrids, not a new species. I don't think I've heard of any male and female ligers (or tigons) breeding and producing viable offspring, let alone successive generations that are capable of reproduction.
Now this is the stupid comment. Darwin had nothing to do with racism. Maybe his fellow sciencetist Huxly, but darwin only could comment on what he saw and nothing more. No one even today can go to Africa or watch a TV documentary or read a text book and say that the blacks are not closer to the ape than others. It's simply observed for what it is. Evolution has nothing to do with racism. It's not moral or immoral, but is anything it has no morals. It's a function in the evolution system for selecting better options of any lifeform willing to take the chances.
. Female tigons or ligers can be reproductive, but the males are almost always sterile.
could you take a number of non-sterile males and females that are the result of this mixing of lion and tiger, and use them to come up with a new animal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
