Help
Quote
While I confess to not having read much of Darwin's work in the original, I have read a great deal of popularized evolutionary material, and I have seen no suggestion that any Darwinian evolutionist has every argued that the ethnic groupings within homo sapiens constitute separate species or even an internal divergence prepartory to a speciation event.
But if you start with the premise that Jews are an internal divergence, then using Darwin you'd come to the conclusion that only one will survive. Keep in mind that Jews have been breeding separately from Gentiles for thousands of years, so much so that there are actually 'Jewish' markers (eg. Tay-sachs).
Quote
A tiger and a lion can't interbreed, even tho they share common ancestors not too far back in paleontological time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
Not only can they mate, but the females from the mating are fertile. If we find that some of the males are fertile as well, what would that mean to you? That they no longer compete for the same resources? That Darwin somehow doesn't apply?
A lot of the 'species' that Darwin wrote about can interbreed and have fertile offspring. The one I learned about back many years ago was green finches and purple finches, IIRC. If you painted the green finches purple and the purple finches green, they'd mate and have green-and-purple chicks. But they don't mate in the wild, and in fact compete for the same resources. Eventually, for a given island, only the green or the purple would survive.
I don't see how Darwinism doesn't apply simply because two groups can crossbreed and have fertile young, if they don't generally do so in the wild (and in the 'Wilds' of Europe, Jews generally bred with Jews and Gentiles with Gentiles until very recently indeed). If you have a pack of wolves and a pack of dogs in the same territory, you don't end up with a pack of wolfdogs. You end up with only one pack surviving, assuming that resources are only sufficient for one pack to make it. If you put a herd of cattle and a herd of buffalo in an area where only one herd can make it, you don't end up with a herd of beefalo. And so forth.
What you need for Darwinism is....
1. Two or more distinct breeding groups.
2. For both groups to share the same ecological niche
3. Limited resources within that niche
4. Unlimited breeding (over time) for each group. ie., as time approaches infinity, the population approaches infinity given unlimited resources.
So, you have a tribe of Tutsi and a tribe of Hottentots, who live next to each other. There's a drought. Both tribes have more kids than the replacement rate. What Darwinism predicts will happen is that one tribe will survive, and the other will no longer occupy the same niche...it will move to another location, or occupy another niche, or it will die off. You won't end up with one tribe of Tuttentots.
And that is indeed what seems to happen.
