3 ms·
Two things: Creationists (to which I believe the middle of the Posterous article was referring) shouldn't be upset at all. The Bible says kinds, not species, an
by sukuriant 16y ago
Two things:
Creationists (to which I believe the middle of the Posterous article was referring) shouldn't be upset at all. The Bible says kinds, not species, and that kinds can and do mate.
Two: why try to cull the mixing? If it's working (and isn't the operation of natural selection all about discouraging what doesn't work?) why try to put a human hand in the activity? Are we so desperately trying to retain what we define as species?
- Groxx 16y agoNeh, I think the OP was just amusing themselves a bit too much with sex jokes / remarks / one-liners. (though how could it be taken as incestual? It's kinda the exact opposite)
- dguaraglia 16y agoLOL, indeed, came here to point that out. It's like saying "he's a pedophile because he's into grannies".
- Groxx 16y agoI suppose the connection could be "brother from another mother"?
- dawgr 16y agoYou are right, we shouldn't interfere with nature but to me if the polar bear is lost through interbreeding it would be a loss. It's like mixing two good perfumes or two good wines, the uniqueness of each is lost to get only one unique thing.
- mkross 16y agoI assume the reason to stop is due to a feeling of guilt. Instead of considering human influence as a part of nature, many people consider it to be some sort of perversion. So instead of being amazed by the adaptability of life, people feel guilty about causing changes. Plus there is the whole time scale thing. The fact that evolution took a really long time to differentiate polar and grizzly bears and in a few lifetimes you would see that split undone is concerning.
- Swizec 16y agoIf the two species can mate it was never that big a split to begin with. Personally I'm far more intrigued by the fact evolution can take action as quickly as a few generations if need be.