Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Monkey Business - Cross Species Breeding.

  1. #1 Monkey Business - Cross Species Breeding. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    As usual I begin with an acknowledgment that I know less than nothing. If I even admitted that I knew nothing, then I’d know something - but I don’t.

    I recently read (In the book “The World Without Us)” about different species of monkeys successfully mating and producing “viable” offspring.

    I thought you couldn’t breed if you had different numbers of chromosomes? I thought that was hard rule.


    See? Even when I know something, it turns out to be wrong (I think I should become a Scientist).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    The change in the number of chromosomes happened after the lineage that eventually produced humans split from the lineage that eventually produced chimpanzees. All extant species of monkey have the same number of chromosomes.


    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Humans? Your "kill-Creationists" radar is *way* too sensitive.


    Red Tailed monkeys.. “Blue” monkeys… So far, although Detwiler has determined that the two species have different numbers of chromosomes, at least some of the ….are fertile.

    Page 55, “The World Without Us”, 2008

    Kate Detwiler, Ph.D, New York University “Center for the Study of Human Origins.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Humans? Your "kill-Creationists" radar is *way* too sensitive.
    Perhaps your "evil scientist" radar is too sensitive. If simply mentioning humans and apes together in the same sentence is in your opinion a vicious attack on creationism, I think you need to learn to relax. And I say that with my moderator hat on.

    Red Tailed monkeys.. “Blue” monkeys… So far, although Detwiler has determined that the two species have different numbers of chromosomes, at least some of the ….are fertile.

    Page 55, “The World Without Us”, 2008

    Kate Detwiler, Ph.D, New York University “Center for the Study of Human Origins.”
    I would have no problem admitting my mistake, but I'm unable to verify your quote. First of all, the book "The World Without us" (link) is by Alan Weisman and is about what would happen to the planet if all humans disappeared.

    However, I did find an article written by Kate Detwiler titled "Hybridization between Red-tailed Monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius) and Blue Monkeys (C. mitis) in East African Forests" in the book "The Guenons: Diversity and Adaptation in African Monkeys," though her article starts on page 79 of the book, not page 55. (link) Unfortunately internet access to the book is limited to the first 50 pages or so, so I cannot verify your quote.

    If you actually have the facts to prove me wrong, at least go to the effort to quote them correctly. I have done my best to find other sources for the chromosome number of these monkeys but haven't found anything available to me. Please at least provide a more complete text (with no "..." please) if you can. However, I have found a variety of references stating that the diploid number of primates ranges between 16 and 60, so I am most likely wrong that all monkeys have the same chromosome number. Closely related species, though, are more likely to have a similar number, and hybridization usually occurs between closely related species.

    Edit: I was continuing to look for what information I could on the chromosome number of these primates and I came across information on chromosomal polymorphisms. Apparently it is not uncommon that, within a single species, there can be variations in chromosome number. I found several references to molluscs but I figured that the rodent examples, like this one, would be more pertinent to the issue at hand, being primates.

    Long story short, animals with varying chromosome number are not always unable to produce fertile offspring together. Most likely it depends on the nature of the number change, and as long as all the necessary genes are still there in the right dosages, fertile offspring can still result.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    I understand you’re sweating right now. That’s not my intention or interest.


    ”…though her article starts on page 79 of the book, not page 55”

    What? The quote I supplied starts on page 55. In the text I supplied. As I clearly said. Why would you want to twist that?


    “If you actually have the facts to prove me wrong”

    I understand you’re sweating right now. I’m just reporting what the source says. Fully referenced.

    “at least go to the effort to quote them correct”

    My quote is 100% correct, in every way.


    (I came here so that people could explain things to me in an easy way)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Vexer, without a link to the actual reference I simply cannot take your word on the subject. I would expect the same of any member, that if they quote a fact whose evidence I am not already familiar with, that they would supply supporting evidence upon request. I myself provided actual links to the actual books so that you can check for yourself that what I'm saying about them is correct. And though half of your reference was incorrect, I still managed to find the article you were referring to, though my access is limited to the abstract.

    In any case, your original question was whether or not animals with different numbers of chromosomes could produce viable hybrids. I've edited my previous post with evidence that shows it is indeed possible.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    This is ridiculous.

    "And though half of your reference was incorrect..."

    My reference is 100% accurate. My meaning is clear.


    (Annoyed reposte deleted in edit)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    The World Without Us is a non-fiction book about what would happen to the natural and built environment if humans suddenly disappeared, written by American journalist Alan Weisman and published by St. Martin's Thomas Dunne Books.[1] It is a book-length expansion of Weisman's own February 2005 Discover article "Earth Without People".[2] Written largely as a thought experiment, it outlines, for example, how cities and houses would deteriorate, how long man-made artifacts would last, and how remaining lifeforms would evolve. Weisman concludes that residential neighborhoods would become forests within 500 years, and that radioactive waste, bronze statues, plastics, and Mount Rushmore would be among the longest lasting evidence of human presence on Earth.


    Does that look or sound like a book about guenons written by Kate Detwiler?
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    with my moderator's hat on
    Congratulations again on your promotion, paralith.

    Cheers Vexer,

    Like you, I know next to nothing. Your post was most interesting, and so I began to google around for the text you reference. I was unable to find such a book, tho did find the book Paralith linked.

    I tried several search strings, and eventually went straight to NYU CSHO and found Kate Detwiler under 'former students.'


    Kate Detwiler
    MA thesis - Hybridization between red-tailed guenons (Cercopithecus ascanius) and blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis) in East African forests.
    Interests - Guenon hybridization and biogeography, primate ecology, behavior and conservation, and tropical forest ecology and conservation.
    http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/anthro/.../students.html

    The monkey business appears to be her master's work, have not found any indication that she has earned a PhD, but that would be only a minor error on your part, of no real substance.

    To the meat of the matter, I went to google scholar to look up Kate's papers. Mind you, none of this stream-of-consciousness on my part is directed at species-species breeding as any scientist worth their salt will tell you that species boudaries are fuzzy at best. FWIW creationists seem to be more concerned with strict delineations of these sorts (ie what is a 'kind' or a 'species') than the more open-ended approach scientists, by nature, take.

    This article appears relevant:

    Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects
    The Guenons: Diversity and Adaptation in African Monkeys
    10.1007/0-306-48417-X_7
    Mary E. Glenn and Marina Cords

    7. Hybridization between Red-tailed Monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius) and Blue Monkeys (C. mitis) in East African Forests
    Kate M. Detwiler4, 5

    (4) Department of Anthropology, New York University, 25 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10003, USA
    (5) New York Consortium in Evolutionary Primatology (NYCEP), USA

    Summary
    Hybridization between Cercopithecus ascanius and C. mitis has been previously recorded at several localities in East Africa. However, recent sightings of redtailed and blue monkey hybrids suggest that they are restricted to Gombe National Park, Tanzania. At Gombe, hybrid monkeys of various age and sex classes are commonly sighted. They are found within red-tailed monkey groups, blue monkey groups, and mixed-species groups, suggesting that introgression is bidirectional. Observations of hybrid females nursing infants and juveniles provide evidence of female hybrid fertility. The high incidence of hybridization at Gombe calls for its recognition as a localized sympatric hybrid zone between Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti and C. mitis doggetti. Gombe—a terrestrial island habitat—then becomes of special interest to evolutionary primatologists because of its possible implications for speciation in guenons.
    I have certainly learned something today, that these monkeys interbreed successfully. I don't quite see how this bears on your initial question though, not having seen any indication of chromosome number on these websites, and did some more googling towards learning about the genomics of these Cercopithecus cousins of ours.

    Sibyle Moulin1, 2 , Michèle Gerbault-Seureau1, Bernard Dutrillaux1 and Florence Anne Richard1, 2

    (1) Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Département de Systématique et Evolution, UMR 5202 CNRS, Origine Structure et Evolution de la Biodiversité, case postale 39, 16 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
    (2) Département de biologie, Université de Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, UFR de Sciences, 45 avenue des Etats Unis, 78035 Versailles, France

    Received: 2 February 2008 Revised: 15 May 2008 Accepted: 15 May 2008 Published online: 13 July 2008

    Abstract The karyotypes of 28 specimens belonging to 26 species of Cercopithecinae have been compared with each other and with human karyotype by chromosome banding and, for some of them, by Zoo-FISH (human painting probes) techniques. The study includes the first description of the karyotypes of four species and a synonym of Cercopithecus nictitans. The chromosomal homologies obtained provide us with new data on a large number of rearrangements. This allows us to code chromosomal characters to draw Cercopithecini phylogenetic trees, which are compared to phylogenetic data based on DNA sequences. Our findings show that some of the superspecies proposed by Kingdon (1997 The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals, Academic Press.) and Groves (2001 Primates Taxonomy, Smithsonian Institution Press) do not form homogeneous groups and that the genus Cercopithecus is paraphyletic, in agreement with previous molecular analyses. The evolution of Cercopithecini karyotypes is mainly due to non-centromeric chromosome fissions and centromeric shifts or inversions. Non-Robertsonian translocations occurred in C. hamlyni and C. neglectus. The position of chromosomal rearrangements in the phylogenetic tree leads us to propose that the Cercopithecini evolution proceeded by either repeated fission events facilitated by peculiar genomic structures or successive reticulate phases, in which heterozygous populations for few rearranged chromosomes were present, allowing the spreading of chromosomal forms in various combinations, before the speciation process.
    As you can see, our understanding of chromosome structure from just a few decades ago, has been revised over the years - such is the nature of science. the topic is most interesting, cheers for bringing this to my attention!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Monkey Business - Cross Species Breeding. 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    As usual I begin with an acknowledgment that I know less than nothing. If I even admitted that I knew nothing, then I’d know something - but I don’t.

    I recently read (In the book “The World Without Us)” about different species of monkeys successfully mating and producing “viable” offspring.

    I thought you couldn’t breed if you had different numbers of chromosomes? I thought that was hard rule.
    Do the species mentioned have differing numbers of chromosomes? Chromosome number is not a defining aspect of the species divide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    It sounds like an evil genious type thing doesn't it? one of those "Igor fetch the elctrodes I shall create a Rhynocoshark muahaha" but in reality it happens far more frequently than we think Animals are not smart and frequently mate with completely random animals simply because they happen to be there



    Viable offspring from such a mating is rare, and in differing spiecies it happens, A fish and a shark will probably not work, but an Orangutan and a Chimp might, Indeed a Mule is a real animal created by a Horse and a Donkey, A horse has 48, Donkeys have 46, mules have 47 chromosomes,

    I think that matching numbers of Chromosomes are not neccessary, but the chromosomes that do match need to be the biggies, Number of legs, shape, brain size etc etc
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    I seriously doubt that anyone bothered to check the chromosome count of all monkey species.

    rhesus monkey and Capuchin Monkey have different amount of chromosomes btw.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ious_organisms
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Differing chromosome numbers within species isn't even that unheard of. Drosophila sex is determined by the ratio of sex chromosomes to autosomes in an individual.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv...bio.table.4139

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv...o.section.4137

    Really all that is required for succesful mating is for the sperm and egg receptors to be similar, and for the offspring not to be rejected. I can't think of an example where two mammals with different chromosome numbers have produced offspring capable of reproducing. However, successful mating between animals with different chromosome numbers is well known, like the mule. Though mules can't produce viable offspring.

    His issue seems to be with the biological species concept, which says that a population has to be reproductively isolated to be a species.

    Apparently zoologist in the 19th century had a lot of fun breeding as many strange hybrids as they could, like zebra-donkeys.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    I have worked with Microtus arvalis. The karyotype of this species is different in northern Europe/russia and hence was renamed Microtus subarvalis at one point, and then Microtus levis.

    They look identical of course.

    And no, they ar enot monkeys. :wink:
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    So we’ve established that different monkeys species have different numbers of chromosomes.

    I can't think of an example where two mammals with different chromosome numbers have produced offspring capable of reproducing.

    That’s what I used to think. But then – see my initial post.



    Chromosome number is not a defining aspect of the species divide.

    What is then?



    free radical,

    I was unable to find such a book…. Well that’s weird, because it was on the New York Times best sellers list.


    have not found any indication that she has earned a PhD, but that would be only a minor error on your part…

    I think not. I quote a text’s reference verbatim, any error is not mine. (And I’m pretty sure there is no error in any case).

    But yes, this whole, “what then is a species” becomes muddier by far. To a “I don’t know what’s going on” level (for me).

    (Put your torches down, I’m not a Creationist. Yet).



    TheBiologista,


    Chromosome number is not a defining aspect of the species divide.

    Well what is?



    i_feel_tiredsleepy

    His issue seems to be with the biological species concept, which says that a population has to be reproductively isolated to be a species.

    I guess that’s it. Just when you think you know something fundamental… it’s wrong.

    That’s disturbing. Because it makes you wonder what Else is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    i_feel_tiredsleepy

    His issue seems to be with the biological species concept, which says that a population has to be reproductively isolated to be a species.

    I guess that’s it. Just when you think you know something fundamental… it’s wrong.

    That’s disturbing. Because it makes you wonder what Else is wrong.
    The species concept has long been issue of debate, Vexer. No one definition has been able to encompass the variety in processes of diversification that we see across organisms. And, in fact, I feel that speciation is best understood as a process, not as a state. Two populations who experience a barrier to gene flow between them will begin to slowly diverge in terms of genetic change. Drop that barrier, and they may interbreed again, they may not, depending on what kinds of change have occurred in the two populations since they split. There may now be a behavioral barrier (mating rituals) or a anatomical barrier (incompatible genitalia or body size) blocking gene flow, or there may not. It's all a matter of where gene flow occurs and where it doesn't - that determines which populations will follow separate trajectories of change and which populations will follow similar trajectories of change.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    So we’ve established that different monkeys species have different numbers of chromosomes.

    I can't think of an example where two mammals with different chromosome numbers have produced offspring capable of reproducing.

    That’s what I used to think. But then – see my initial post.



    Chromosome number is not a defining aspect of the species divide.

    What is then?



    free radical,

    I was unable to find such a book…. Well that’s weird, because it was on the New York Times best sellers list.


    have not found any indication that she has earned a PhD, but that would be only a minor error on your part…

    I think not. I quote a text’s reference verbatim, any error is not mine. (And I’m pretty sure there is no error in any case).

    But yes, this whole, “what then is a species” becomes muddier by far. To a “I don’t know what’s going on” level (for me).

    (Put your torches down, I’m not a Creationist. Yet).



    TheBiologista,


    Chromosome number is not a defining aspect of the species divide.

    Well what is?



    i_feel_tiredsleepy

    His issue seems to be with the biological species concept, which says that a population has to be reproductively isolated to be a species.

    I guess that’s it. Just when you think you know something fundamental… it’s wrong.

    That’s disturbing. Because it makes you wonder what Else is wrong.
    Why are you preoccupied with a definition for species? You may find it useful to think of as analogous to colour. We can recognise the difference between red and blue, but the gradations between are so continuous that there is no clear demarcation for when "red" has ended and "blue" has begun. That is certainly no argument for believing in a 6000 year old earth, however.

    Likewise, biology is concerned with the study of life, rather than adhering to a previous conceptual framework (speciation was a useful framework 100 years ago, now it is more useful to think in terms of evolutionary divergence), and like all sciences our understanding evolves over time. If this is not the way your brain tends to work, you may find that science is not for you.

    For the record, many things in science are "wrong." Scientific understanding proceeds by approximation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Especially since the biological species concept is only one of many ways to define species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    So.

    I Learned that interspecies breeding is far more liberal than I thought. Everything I thought I knew about what constitutes a "species" is Wrong. I learned in fact, that we don't know much about that. As usual, I have been taught things that weren't true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Taught by who?
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    So.

    I Learned that interspecies breeding is far more liberal than I thought. Everything I thought I knew about what constitutes a "species" is Wrong. I learned in fact, that we don't know much about that. As usual, I have been taught things that weren't true.
    Hopefully you have learned to think in the process! An aspect of education that can be sorely lacking!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    So.

    I Learned that interspecies breeding is far more liberal than I thought. Everything I thought I knew about what constitutes a "species" is Wrong. I learned in fact, that we don't know much about that. As usual, I have been taught things that weren't true.
    "Species" is a label, its biological definition is not very tight. We typically consider it to be based on the capacity to interbreed, but this is just for convenience. The taxonomy system we currently use is a system of labels that we use to make talking about different life forms easier. We use it in the knowledge that it has flaws and inaccuracies. The definition you learned about what constitutes a species was correct, you just made the mistake of assuming that a species reflects something more concrete than it actually does.

    The shortcomings of our taxonomy system are being addressed via research into cladistics, which seeks to create a taxonomy (of sorts) based upon something more concrete- genetics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    >> Taught by who?

    Parents, school, university, radio, TV, books. Did I leave anything out?


    Lesson - (not just from this one example, of course, but from hundreds like it):

    It's probably a logical certainty, that everything, literally without exception, you think you know, is Wrong. Either a bit, or a lot.

    (That philosophically interesting, but this is a Science place, eh).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Then your teachers, the books you read and the shows you watch and listen to have not been very up to date. Most college-level courses and textbooks on this subject take care to address the issues involved with defining the species concept. As a general rule you should take popular sources like TV shows with a grain of salt.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    >>As a general rule you should take popular sources like TV shows with a grain of salt.

    You must agree that the "rule" I have just shown to be busted is being taught in, schools, radio, TV and books. At this moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    >>As a general rule you should take popular sources like TV shows with a grain of salt.

    You must agree that the "rule" I have just shown to be busted is being taught in, schools, radio, TV and books. At this moment.
    As short hand for the truth, yes. It's inaccurate, not untrue. Most people don't really care about the exact definition of species so what they understand is good enough unless they need the enhanced version.

    Look, the media etc. are giving you much more inaccurate "science" than this. They're generally unable to discern a scientist from a quack who talks like one. Health information in the mainstream media is particularly crammed with total rubbish. There's little point in dwelling on the exact "definition of species" when the public are being told antioxidants are good for them despite real scientists saying there's no evidence for that... It's a mess and we're just happy that some vaguely accurate stuff is getting out there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    I 'bump' this thread because it's the (personally) most interesting from a sociological point, of view. It illustrates the the levels that "contra" science goes through. The "peasants with torches" effect. The perfectly innocent thought that gets....


    I don't wish to discount the three good replies I got.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    I bump this because I think it's illuminating on rwo levels.

    1. Tribal Anti-bodies fighting a perceived infection (ie, me)

    2. Intentional willful sustained attack of legitimate sources. (see above)


    Science, for ya.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Vexer, if you would like to discuss the nature of science and/or scientists, you should start a thread in philosophy (on the philosophy of science) or in behavior and psychology (on the behavior of scientists). As for this thread, do not continue to bump it unless you want to actually discuss species concepts further.
    /mod mode
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •