Meaning, what do you think of "mixing" different species?\nWe're doing a debate next week, so any thoughts on pro's & con's would be welcome.
204110
i think mixing different species have both advantages n disadvantages .some of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Transgenic Crops?\nThe use of transgenic crops has been an issue for many years. Many concerns have been raised and these generally fall into two categories: \n\n\nA concern about what affect genetically modified material could have on human health. For example, transgenic crops have been suggested to cause allergies in some people, although it is uncertain whether transgenic crops are the source of this reaction3. Furthermore the antibiotic resistance genes placed in these crops has been suggested to cause resistance to antibiotics leading to super bugs that cannot be killed with antibiotic treatments3. The idea of a population being uncomfortable with ingesting DNA that originated from another source, such as a virus or bacteria, must also be considered when thinking about producing transgenic crops. However, to date, there is no evidence of the DNA from transgenic crops being any different from the DNA ingested from conventional crops. \nA concern about whether transgenic crops cause damage to the natural environment. One example includes pollen from transgenic corn, which has been suggested to kill the Monarch butterfly larvae. It has been shown that hybrid corn expresses a bacterial toxin in its pollen, which is then dispersed over 60 meters by wind. In this range, the corn pollen is deposited on other plants near cornfields where it can be ingested by non-target organisms including the monarch butterfly5. These butterflies have been found to eat less, have a slower growth rate and higher death rate5. A second example is the hybridization of crops with nearby weeds. This could cause these weeds to attain resistance to herbicides or other things that we have been trying to avoid for many years. Genes that provide resistance to viral disease or other traits allowing them to survive in their environment could end up benefiting weed populations around a crop field. This trait could make that population more difficult to control. To date, there has been little evidence to support this theory2. \nOn other side of the coin are the notions that support the use of transgenic crops. The potential benefits of which are quite obvious, including such things as increased yields (to feed a growing population), decreasing the use of pesticides (to save the environment and the cost of pesticides), and the production of novel crops (such as providing crops with increased nutritional value)3. Being able to retrofit any crop to our desires is a powerful concept, especially with the changing climates of today
91300
Wow, I do NOT think so.  Every time a life form on earth has been introduced into a different environment, it is almost always (and maybe always) a mistake.  Some examples:  kudzu in the South for erosion control; rabbits in Australia; European sparrows displacing native sparrows in North America.  I realize we are not close to Enceladas, but let's let it develop life on its own.
524242
This is a point that has been taken up by those in scientific and academic circles.\n\nSo, no, you aren't the only one.\n\nNot long before I was born, it was assumed that Black blood types must be different than Whites, and Blacks who wanted to donate blood were rejected.\n\nTurns out there's no relation between blood type and race.\n\nThere have been people arguing that the whole concept of race is bogus.\n\nA few weeks ago, I caught part of a really interesting documentary on PBS of a genetics expert who was following out the migrations of humans.\n\nTurns out, everyone in Europe, most of East Asia (northern, primarily) and the Americas are related, and descended from the same small group of people -- who had first migrated to the middle of Eurasia, then some traveled west to Europe, and a very few to the Americas.\n\nThe differences that have sprung up since the separation of people into the "races" are as nothing compared to our shared traits.\n\nAnd no one is "pure" as there has been mixing ever since.\n\nNo, you're both in good company and on solid ground in finding the concept bogus.
168959
after reading this question I've heard of it...and i think its wrong...any form of sexual activity should be left for a mate of the same species.
262048
id say the plants and animals are multi-celled and the others are single-celled. also cell specilization could be a difference.
149075
Personally I think that it is fine. there is nothing wrong with either race. Society (including the government) is trying preserve racial purity, because if the races mix, it makes categorizing what race you are imposable. which is in my opinion a good thing, because that leads to racial equality.\n\nFYI I am white, and I married a black woman.
248931
Heron,\n\nYou are not only "punny", but also, very humorous; however, I am not sure if shall you be serious in the asking of this question because, it is not posted in the joke-section.  \n\nMy opinion is that, the true beauty of humanity is in the mixture, not in the singularity.  In other words, those of more than one blood-lineages can possess not only physical unique beauty, but also inherit more than one cultural knowledges.\n\nPeace.
315298
Beautiful. ANother convert to jim_darwinism.\n\nWe have reached one "soul"\n\nI will look for a strong liberal to run for President in 2008.
84900
i havent heard that example, but its possible. that would possibly fall into the category of microevolution...like when birds beaks get bigger or smaller to crack different nuts. its still a bird, with slightly different attributes. that would be an example of artificial rather than natural selection though, since it would be people choosing what they think is attractive, rather than nature killing off people who were less well equipped to deal with the environment.
100132
As a biologist I must weigh in.\n\nThe terminology and methodology of you stance is a bit off.   As we populate and compete for resources that are scarce, there will be increased competition. Problem is that the way the world works, that has little bearing on the real world. In Africa kids starve daily. In America kids are obese. There is no natural selection taking place.  As the population expands, there will be groups of HAVEs and groups of HAVE NOTS. But the HAVES will have few external influences on their mating.\n\nHomesexuality has been around a long time. It is seen in animals, and people. Throughout history at times it was commonplace and accpeted. Regardless of what you may read, no one can say for sure the causes of homsexuality. It is probably a complex set of genetic variations, behaviors and experiences. It could be genetic, as some familes have high incidences of homosexual members, but it is probably more spontaneous.  \n\nAs an aside, it is patently FALSE that states which have gay unions have a falling birth rate. You quote the need for references, put your money where yuor mouth is. Lets look at those few states and look at the birth rates and all the variables and see the true facts.\n\nback to the question. No, as a species we are not evolving towards gay. If population is a true evoluntionary problem, people will become less fertile, as many animal models ahve shown. Numerous species where competition is tough have fewer young and would be less likly to produce offspring regularly. That is how mother nature operates.\n\nif anything, the evolutionof our species will ultimately end in parthogensis where women can self fertilize making males obsolete. If we were to model the human species against animals we would see similarities in population dynamics and this could be the future in MANY thousands of centuries.
44612
Nice effort and beneficial.\nThey want to trace back the details of human generations which are vague.\nWell, they "search" for Adam, right?\nThey must believe in creationism rather than evolution.\n\nHopefully people will realise that we humans are all the same. We came from the same root. No more racist solicitation.\nThe theory of evolution is focused mostly on physiques. They do not care to think that men have minds and spirit.\nIt is clearly wrong to define us physically just like the animals. We are better than animals. \nMoreover, we are the best creations. \n\nI do not really get the picture with the female ancestor to date earlier than the common male ancestor. Could you explain to me about that?\n\nIt is weird for woman and man to live not in the same time. How could they reproduce?\n\nMaybe I will come back later. By the way, I think "boffin" means buffoons.\n\n\n\nThank you Kurdiatcha for explaining to me.\nI was not expecting you but the questioner herself but thank you.\n\nI would like to edit some more but have no time.\nHere's a little correction:\n\nWhat I meant by define us physically just like the animals is to take ONLY physique into acount.\n\nThe brain differs from the mind. Animals have brains but not minds. They have life but not soul.\n\nBrain is physique. Mind is defined as the ability to learn and understand things by self, not gifted.\nOf course, we need the help of God to understand about something.\nMind is also the sign of rationality of humans.\n\nI will continue later.\n\n\n\nSorry for keeping you waiting so long, Nelly. I had to take time to make a structure of my next explainations which are:\nThis is going to be quite a LONG lecture.\n\n\nHuman = (Physique) (Mind) (Life) (Soul)\nAnimal = (Physique) (Life)\n\nPhysique = Physique?\nIt is most probably. If to follow the law of balance; equation and relation, Human seems to have more advantages such as Mind and Soul, therefore their Physique must be less advantageous than that of Animal.\n\nLife = Life\n\nSoul = Mind (Feelings) (Life)\nMind = Soul (Life) (Physique)\nFeelings = (Physique) (Soul)\nMind ≠ Brain\nBrain = Mind (Physique) (Life) = Brain\nIn this context, Mind means the controller. Brain of Human and Brain of Animal are similar but not the same.\n\nMind = Soul\nMind + Soul (Animal) = Human\nMind and Soul are similar yet they are not one. Plus, they are parallel. Physique capsulizes Brain where in the Brain lies Mind. Life capsulizes Soul. The parallelism of both must be broken and should be met in order to achieve the same goal; finding God. \nOnce they have combined, the journey of finding God will be clearer.\n\nPhysique (Mind) + Life (Soul) = Human\nSoul + Mind ≠ Human\nPhysique + Life ≠ Human\n\nTherefore, Physique and Life make up Animal’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life and Life enlivens Physique. It is mutual symbiosis.\n\nPhysique, Mind, Life and Soul make up Human’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life, Soul and Mind, Life and Soul enlivens Physique, Mind controls Physique and Life, so does Soul. Soul controls Mind but Mind decides initially.\n\nConsider Human like a box (Physique) powered by Life externally. Inside the box, there is a ball of Soul and Mind; Mind takes up only the core while Soul is the ball inside out. With the ball, the box is generated internally.\n\nThe three parts: Physique, Life and Soul must be available in order for a Human to love but irrationally minded. Therefore, Mind is the only part of rationality. It is the only part of intelligence.\n\n\nThe above equations show the difference between Human and Animal. I know it is quizzical to you, so it is to me.\nThe sign with the small "l" is actually a small number 1, indicates Human.\n\nWell, if we to trace the generations of human, we must primarily try to understand human. If you do not understand anything, tell me. I will try to make you understand the equation. Even I do n
553033
Can you show me where in the article it says anyone wants to create an embryo which is half cow and half human? I only see it mentioning that they plan to insert human DNA into cow ova from which the DNA has been removed, to create embryos that are 99.9% human. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it's actually rather sensible as far as being cost-effective and providing sufficient testing material goes.\n\nHalf cow half human, maybe not. I'm not sure you could even 'fuse' cow and human DNA to create an embryo.
233310
We can never know whether animals will hybridise without trying, but in this case it seems unlikely. Crocodiles and alligators separated an awful long time ago, and the longer two branches are separated in evolutionary time the less chance of successful hybridisation.\n\nGiven that it is normal for zoo to keep crocodiles and alligators together and they have never hybridised so far it seem unlikely that breeding is possible without the use of artificial insemination.\n\n\nNo Name said :>>>> Of course, the mule is sterile, so you\n              >>>> will never have two mules to mate with\n              >>>> each other.\n\nThat isn't entirely true. Male mules are usually sterile, but there have been numerous instances of Mollies giving birth to perfectly healthy foals.
354492
Maybe you can understand it if I put it this way as an EXAMPLE  Pure bred dogs and cats all look alike right, Mutts come in many mutations. Not saying anyone is a animal or one is better than another just the difference in DNA variations.
326834
Not to mention, a 3 percent difference in genetics is a vast difference.  Enough to render a separate and distinct species.
229264
FOR THOSE WHO DESCIMINATE BASED ON 'RACE'!\n\nRace shouln't be an issue.\n         Why does anybody think one race is greater than other.???   \n   GOD creates us all in same way. Its just the geography that has played its game.\n  If u still dont agree...why dont u just take a knife and poke it into ur stomach..\n           See wats comin out.. If it is blood and If it is RED ... then man u are not superior!!..\n   You are just flesh and blood. Watever the race ...u are same inside.  THen Why the hell are some guys hangin on 'Black' or 'White' or 'Asian' or BS! C'mon, its high time u become a human being!!!
331440
Your "soul"?  What are they teaching in biology class these days? :-)\n\nLook, a person and their clone would be no more alike than two normally occuring identical twins.  In fact, genetically, that's exactly what a clone is ... just an identical twin.  They *look* alike, and may have some similar propensities (they may both be naturally talented at math, say) ... but other than that they are two completely independent human beings.  They will have different experiences ... that makes them different.\n\nAs for your "soul", biologists are happy to leave that to the spiritual folks.  Biologists have no opinion either way.