h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Minimeas, it's not true that "PYT hasn't actually contributed any further to this forum" after the inital four posts.

PYT wrote in posts 183-186:--" So this is the best you hippies could do? Send out the mongrels?"

In response to warrior ranger's post 187 "Ah, PYT, you're back! Welcome!
Now, do you have any intention of carrying on an intelligent discussion, or are you simply here to cause trouble?"

PYT replied (188):-- "causing trouble is just the last thing on my mind - I love all you hippie nerdos"

PYT's last post (190) was defamatory and got moderated, but was quoted by warrior ranger in 191, which is worth reading -- go here F19585?thread=269688&skip=180&show=20; ; it was there that warrior ranger suggested the friendlier term 'mutt'which in turn inspired Chaiwallah (post 247):-- "Thanks, PYT, for your intended insult which I shall wear from now on as a badge of pride, Hippie Nerdo Mutt, or HNM."

Things have been quieter since then.

Going back to the 'breeder/breeding' dabate, I found this interesting piece:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Don't forget, not everyone is able to be online frequently.

The comment about red & grey squirrels made me think about other animals - horses & donkeys breeding = a jenny (is that right?).
Wasn't there something in the news lately about some other cross breed, sheep & goat or something?

Don't forget, not everyone is able to be online frequently.

The comment about red & grey squirrels made me think about other animals - horses & donkeys breeding = a jenny (is that right?).
Wasn't there something in the news lately about some other cross breed, sheep & goat or something? (Probably artificial insemination rather than naturally.)

As far as I know sheep and goats have always been able to breed. It's rare but it does happen occasionally.

Off to read the backlog to find out what led up to this

Isn't a horse/donkey cross a mule? And always sterile?

Or a hinny, the sterile female.

Cannot quite get the gist of what Researcher (don't remember the numbers - can you get a name?) was trying to say about us all being monkeys and having laws about inter-breeding. Laws? Does this mean that a cat won't naturally breed with a dog? Or is this talking about humans somehow. Just curious, Researcher blah-blah, could you be more specific?

az

Cannot quite get the gist of what Researcher (don't remember the numbers - can you get a name?) was trying to say about us all being monkeys and having laws about inter-breeding. Laws? Does this mean that a cat won't naturally breed with a dog? Or is this talking about humans somehow. Just curious, Researcher blah-blah, could you be more specific?

az

In comparing the inter-breeding of animals such and lions and tigers, donkeys and horses, and red and grey squirrels with the inter-"breeding " of people who happen to be of different color is like comparing apples and pears with apples and apples.

While it is possible for lions and tigers to produce offspring (ligers and tigons) because it has been done, you are dealing with animals which are members of the same family (Feline) but are not the same species.

People are Homo sapiens sapiens, whether they are black, white, brown, or any shade in between. They are the same Class (Mammalia), Order (Primates), Family (Hominidae), Genus (Homo), Species (sapiens) and sub-species (sapiens). Species, by the way, is defined as individuals who can procreate with each other.

There are very specific characterisitcs which differentiate us from our various "cousins" such as Apes, and Monkeys. However, whether PYT likes it or not, only minor superficial differences between humans.

Again, the differences in skin and hair color and texture, shape and color of eyes, height, and build are not indicators of differences between "species" they are simply adaptations of the same animal to enviroment, and the result of thousands upon thousands of years of inter-breeding and extra-breeding (in-breeding and breeding outside of cultural group to which one belongs), not due to their level on the Evolutionary Scale.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals) were related and, being the same species but not the same sub-species probably capable of procreating with Homo sapiens. However, they show very distinct differences from Homo sapiens sapiens which brings into question whether they would have. Since there aren't any around to ask, the point is moot.

Scientists have recently hypothesized that Europeans stemmed from 7 "families", more specifically, 7 matriarchial groups.

"Further, all seven of the genetic groups appear to be descended from the “Lara” clan, one of three clans that still exist today in Africa. This supports the African Eve theory, proposed in the late ’80s by biochemist Allan Wilson, Mark Stoneking and others, which states that all humans share a common African ancestor. Wilson and his colleagues used the same genetic material, mtDNA, for their study."*

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/daughters000420.html
* http://www.duffus.com/sundaynews9_9_01/daughters_of_eve.htm

Previously, I said that the differences between humans (the so-called "racial" differences) are the result of thousands upon thousands of years of inter-breeding and extra-breeding (in-breeding and breeding outside of cultural group to which one belongs....

The operative words are "cultural group".

Basically what the racists suggest (though they wouldn't agree) is that people shouldn't "breed" outside their culture. Since "culture" is an intangible, it is impossible to so carefully deliniate where one "culture" ends and another begins that "Breeding only within your cultural group" would be like having a "war on terror". And that would be just plain silly....

Well, just look at the various Royal families still scattered about the globe. I mean, both England and Monaco did quite well getting Diana and Grace in there for at least a few 'attractive genes'. Otherwise a lot of them look like chinless, one-eyebrowed sorts. After years and years of marrying their first cousins, etc. As for what this in-breeding has done to their brains, well, who knows? Luckily for most of them having a brain is not necessary.

az

Interesting use of punctuation, capitals and children. Off topic though.

I am only putting these up to answer questions Mules, etc. The "breeding" of horses with donkeys, zebras with donkeys, and tigers with lions results in a "hybrid". Hybrids are the result of crossing animals of different species with each other, generally not by nature.

Before we get into yet another discussion about how what humans do isn't "breeding" and what animals do is.... The term breeding is just another all-encompassion word that refers to everything from animal husbandry to a more socially-acceptible term for "Making-the-Beast-with-two-backs-every-Tuesday-evening-unless-Hockey-Night-in-Canada-is-on".

My preferred uses of the term "breeding"
1. breeding [n.] 1. Raising someone to be an accepted member of the community; "they debated whether nature or nurture was more important"; bringing up, fostering, fosterage, nurture, nurturing, raising, rearing, upbringing.

2. General education, usually associate with high culture; "he was a man of exceptional breeding. Please see entry 441 where I list definitions of "breeding".

On Mules: http://www.geocities.com/moredonkeys/aboutmules.html

On Zebra-hybrids: http://www.lovelongears.com/zorse.html

Hybrids in general: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gene_safari/breeding_zone/animal.shtml

Regarding the discussion of Chimps, I believe they were referring to "Natural Law" which is that if it ain't meant to happen, it won't... See post #351 or so....

> While it is possible for lions and tigers to produce offspring (ligers and tigons) because it has been done,
> you are dealing with animals which are members of the same family (Feline) but are not the same species.

> Regarding the discussion of Chimps, I believe they were referring to "Natural Law" which is that if it ain't meant
> to happen, it won't... See post #351 or so....

One has to query the term "definition" in the expectation of scientific integrity. Merely saying something is so does not prove it is so. No-one has that much faith.

"Natural Law" as a scientific term could extend to the geographical boundaries, for example, as much as for the zoological ones. Take for instance the boundaries for lions and tigers. Both are to be found in Asia so there is no reason they only meet in zoos is there?

As for Darwinism and similar mysticisms: surely proof would have been provided by now that humans and apes are of the same genus? Judging by what whores in porn movies get up to these days, one would have expected to note the presence of one or two quirks of nature by now.

researcher get-a-name already,

And your point is . . . exactly?

You are spouting out various so-called facts about things and then calling other people off-topic. Then you throw out red-herring crap about porn films.

But you know, you have not been clear at all about what it is you are trying to say. Otherwise it's just smoke and mirrors - and you are being totally off-topic for not saying anything at all.

az

> So what are you, exactly? Ignorant, racist or both?

What is the difference?

It is a well known fact that all racist sentients on all inhabited planets are ignorant. They are almost always criminally insane if not mentally deficient. (Those two latter attributes generally not precluding each other except on Fwxlitailrty. And even there it is only a generality.)

I do beg your pardon. One of my fish died recently.

Would you mind rephrasing your question?

219823,

Apes and Humans are in the same Family, but different Genera.

researcher 219823

You are still not saying ANYTHING at all. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo - totally not connected to anything. Is this a joke?

az