Skip to comments.
A mystery in black and white: Domesticated animals look - and act - differently ...
The Boston Globe ^
| 1/28/2003
| Cynthia Mills
Posted on 01/29/2003 8:38:42 AM PST by Prolixus
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
To: Prolixus
I guess this would explain why the nords, with their red and blond hair, and their blue and green eyes, have always been among the most calm and domestic of races.
To: KarlInOhio
Sure, Bonzo can probably outshoot me, but can he field strip and clean that sucker?
To: Born to Conserve
I knew this was coming.
*coughVikingscough*
To: Prolixus
Interesting post - thanks.
24
posted on
01/29/2003 10:49:32 AM PST
by
lodwick
To: r9etb
IOW, you assume that the personality traits are inherited, and you take animals with bad traits out of the gene pool. This has implications beyond animal breeding, if you take a good look at our inner cities. The "bad boy" gangbangers are fathering more than their share of babies...
25
posted on
01/29/2003 11:36:56 AM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(To see the ultimate evil, visit the Democrat Party)
To: Junior
We had a good thread on the fox breeding expermiment, but I can't locate it. Here's an article on it:
A new breed of fox.
26
posted on
01/29/2003 11:45:38 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Only fools read taglines!)
To: SauronOfMordor
This has implications beyond animal breeding, if you take a good look at our inner cities. The "bad boy" gangbangers are fathering more than their share of babies... Well, yes. But that takes us directly to the concept of eugenics and social darwinism, and raises some disturbing questions about "unalienable rights."
27
posted on
01/29/2003 11:49:36 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: denydenydeny
Do Vikings have floppy ears?
28
posted on
01/29/2003 11:52:05 AM PST
by
Prolixus
To: Prolixus
29
posted on
01/29/2003 11:53:11 AM PST
by
tang-soo
To: tang-soo
bttt
30
posted on
01/29/2003 12:25:34 PM PST
by
tang-soo
To: r9etb
"The 'bad boy' gangbangers are fathering more than their share of babies..." Well, yes. But that takes us directly to the concept of eugenics and social darwinism, and raises some disturbing questions about "unalienable rights." The government has been engaged in a eugenics program for decades. By enabling single women to bear multiple children without any need to secure a husband who will be a stable source of support, and be a stable father for the children, the government has facilitated an experiment to see what happens when violent-but-"exciting" bad-boys become the dominent breeders in an area
31
posted on
01/29/2003 3:58:55 PM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(To see the ultimate evil, visit the Democrat Party)
To: PatrickHenry
"With less melanin, there would be white patches on the animal's coat. Less adrenaline would dampen the urge to fight or flee. " Does this mean that people with freckles are more mellow?
To: longshadow
Does this mean that people with freckles are more mellow? If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (One good question deserves another.)
To: r9etb
What was new to me were two things.
That in the beginning the "domesticated" animals may have selected themselves by surviving because of human activity, like the wolves surviving on human waste/refuse, and humans didn't start from scratch when they began breeding animals.
That there may be some physical appearances that are linked to passivity, like white/spotted appearance and cowlick positioning.
That humans bred animals for traits they wanted is old news, but the two things above were new thoughts for me.
To: patriciaruth
That humans bred animals for traits they wanted is old news, but the two things above were new thoughts for me. I'm beginning to think about it this way: it suggests that genetic engineering for this trait may have unintended consequences for some other trait. If personality traits have physical implications, then the converse is probably true as well.
It makes me think that the general idea of genetic engineering on humans is probably a very bad idea.
35
posted on
01/30/2003 6:52:50 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: SauronOfMordor
The government has been engaged in a eugenics program for decades. And the results of this program basically validate the morals and traditions that were disposed of by the libertine revolution of the '60s.
Traditions come about, and survive, for the simple reason that they reflect true knowledge, gained through experience, over the course of generations. They are not to be rejected lightly, even if we don't understand how they came about in the first place.
36
posted on
01/30/2003 6:58:10 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: twinzmommy
To: PatrickHenry
If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?Minkeys are businessmen. They pay no taxes. They control the zoo union.
38
posted on
01/30/2003 8:10:58 AM PST
by
johnny7
(Ungowa! Cheetah, ungowa!)
To: PatrickHenry
A pet fox might be cool. Wonder if you can housebreak them?
|
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach |
|
|
Note: this topic is dated 1/28/2003.
Blast from the Past.
Thanks Prolixus.
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
|
40
posted on
03/03/2013 7:25:05 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson