Giraffes May Be Six Separate Species 239
The BBC reports on research, published in BMC Biology, pointing to the possibility that there may be at least six species of giraffe in Africa. Quoting: "'Using molecular techniques we found that giraffes can be classified into six groups that are reproductively isolated and not interbreeding,' David Brown, the lead author of the study and a geneticist at... UCLA told BBC News. 'The results were a surprise because although the giraffes look different, if you put them in zoos, they breed freely.'"
Contradiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Racist animals (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in short...the giraffes are racists unless they live in a "multicultural" environment (ie: a zoo)?
Now, where have I heard that before?
Re:Breeding? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Breeding? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Racist animals (Score:1, Insightful)
Human families would diverge into separate species if kept in isolation for long enough AND if confronted by significantly divergent evolutionary pressures. For the last 200k years or more, all significant human evolutionary pressures have been technological, not environmental.
So we could see nerds emerge as a distinct species if they can find female nerds to breed with, and thus outcompete non-nerds. If a successful nerd family evolves a really useful new ability - like the ability to detect bullshit at a long distance - this would get spread into the new nerd family. Over time, enough such changes - hundreds of thousands, probably - affect the DNA enough to break new nerd to non-nerd breeding.
That, more or less, is what is happening with the Giraffes, except their specialization is the ability to recognize the right trees, remember which villages to avoid, and not to mess with the cape buffalo. The difference is not great enough to make them inter-infertile. It's obvious that a giraffe from family A is not going to want to breed with one from tribe B because (a) they are competitors, and (b) it'd produce less viable - specialized - offspring who would be sub-class in both families.
With people, interbreeding works great because we are genetically so close it's almost embarrassing. Our variation is cultural, above all.
Re:Racist animals (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmm, in theory it sounds reasonable, but in (human) practice "exotic" partners are preferred by many. "Hybrid" partners, those who inherit characteristics of both "own" and "other" race are certainly THE most liked. IMHO, only the social, cultural pressure and barriers, as well as geographic separation keeps humans from mating with other human races more then they already do.
I dunno... my wife IS of my ethnicity (well...almost), but she looks quite different then me and it positively influenced my choice. Women who look like my kin generally seem
Re:Same thing with people... (Score:4, Insightful)
Person A: "niggers and spics 2+2=4"
Person B: "Racist"
You: "You mean he's incorrect? Two plus two is NOT four?"
No. He meant person A was a racist ass (and/or a deliberate troll).
African-Americans and Hispanic people aren't disproportionately located in low income housing?
That is a simple fact.
Someone who thinks that fact is relevant to mention may or may not be a racist, and it is reasonable to consider the context to see if it was indeed a reasonable relevant point or if it was motivated by bigotry.
Someone who rants about "niggers and spics" is a racist ass (and/or a deliberately trolling), regardless of whatever is said along with "niggers and spics".
Hitler said 2+2=4. He may even have used 2+2=4 somewhere as one step in his rationalization for exterminating Jews and other "undesirables". A true fact is a true fact, no matter who utters it. And equally, the fact that some literal datum is true does not necessarily make it relevant, and does not mean that it is being applied in a valid context mental chain of intent and conclusion.
-
Re:Same thing with people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Breeding? (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, the "species" classification appears to be politically motivated. From TFA: "It is hoped that classifying current subspecies as fully fledged species will help inform conservation plans" Regardless of the motivations behind that, it is a really bad way to do science, which should be concerned only with the facts of the matter.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
On another note, the definition for species has changed over the years. This is probably why it is so hard of a topic to get straight and keep everyone on board. It used to be that we just looked at animals that were different enough in characteristics and called them a different species. This is why Blacks were at one time considered only part human and mostly of a different species. But we got wise and realized that couldn't be true and added the idea of sexual reproduction. It was then, with sexual reproduction being a pivoting point, the macro verses micro evolution became a popular issue. Now the reproduction requirement is watered down so much that if it can reproduce but decides not to naturally, they are a different species. This of course creates more problems, problems like now Racists, White or black or whatever nationality, would be considered a different species because they choose not to breed with others not like them.
I give this because you seem to think this is some settled issue that creationist are attempting to turn upside down. While that may be true, science in and of itself has turned it around more in the last 2 centuries then any religious organization. But this is part of the scientific process that makes it so great. While there isn't any empirical evidence proving a common ancestor and speciation, There is a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting it. And while most of the Newer attempt to point to speciation further twists the definitions of species to make the point. The definition of species shouldn't exist just to discredit creationist, that is the farthest from scientific we can get with science.
It also seems that you haven't explored the "other way" yet want to cast it in a dim light. Thats fine but it is also non scientific. You should at least understand the argument's you are rejecting. Simple rejecting them for the sake of doing so or to favor your pet project and procedures leads to an almost religious interpretation of science. One of the founding principles of science is that it can be wrong and we can correct our knowledge when we find these things out. An association with god doesn't automatically make something untrue, It doesn't make it true either. But think about that, If god willed you to fill a glass with watter and drink it, the only thing not testable (unscientific) is God willing you to do something. Getting a glass and filling it with water and then drinking it at some point in time could be a reality. The same would be true is evolution did end up with a macro verses micro reality. If it is found that one doesn't actually happen, then the only thin unscientific could be the God created part, the rest can be testable to some degree. You also have different theories of evolution inside the science community like the Bubble theory of evolution [sciencedaily.com] that I heard back in the mid 70's that to some degree supports the macro verses micro separations.
In the end, we just have to look at why we are discrediting something. If it is because of sound facts, then it is one thing. If it is because of disdain for a group of people or whet they might claim in and of itself, then it is sort of doing the same things you don't like about them.