WHAT COULD WE LEARN FROM THESE SIBLINGS?
Another good question.
Here are some photos of some of our newest baby bunnies. They are all siblings, and all bunnies, but yet they vary in coloration. In the photos one is very light colored, another very dark colored, and one is in between. They are not separate "races," they are simply bunnies. Unfortunately, due to the evolutionary viewpoint (remember "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life") humans, who are all humans, get split up into separate "races" (some of which Darwin even considered to be "Favoured Races" - which means that "other races" would be less desireable in his opinion) based on the coloration of their skin.
Of course, if we all did come from monkeys and are actually different races, the some "races" would be more monkey than others, according to the evolutionary viewpoint. While it may seem like a covenient belief system that removes God from the picture and thus removes our moral accountability too, it doesn't really change the truth, no matter what "a long, long time ago, in land far, far away, nothing turned into everything" fairytale people will claim is "scientific fact." Anyway, time for more cute bunny photos. Enjoy!
CUTE PHOTOS TO ACCOMPANY MY BRIEF RANT
Until next time…
STEEMIT LIKE YOU MEAN IT!
It always amazes me how often Darwin's theories and racist thinking gets mixed up and misinterpreted. I agree, there are no "races" as such. However, there are variations in skin / fur color, and many many other things. Actually, just the number of factors (from hair density to the shapes of our ears) should already smash any logical basis of grouping people into races.
As far as evolution is concerned, it makes sense that the white bunny could hide more easily in the snow, but be seen more easily (thus caught and eaten) without any snow around. Same thing goes for us: in case of higher UV radiation (due to a depleted ozone layer, for example) having lighter skin would be detrimental, while dark skin offers more protection. On the other hand, should the sky grow chronically dark (due to, let's say, a nuclear winter) people with light skin could absorb more of the little sunlight there is. So it all depends on the conditions, which biological trait is favored, meaning which members of a species have a better chance to reproduce. So does that mean that people with one trait or the other are better at solving problems, or more prone to violence? Of course not, since the question at hand is only related to skin, which has only to do with the functions of the skin, no more, no less.
In "The Descent of Man" Darwin wrote, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. " Any time someone is making comments about the "races of man," I find that, by very definition to be racist. Moreover to view some people groups as "civilised races" and others as "savage races" provides some food for thought into what a person who would say such things actually believes. Perhaps his comment about civilized races exterminating savage races was simply social commentary, but the underlying belief system that even categorizes people as such is, in my own opinion (and I reserve the freedom to be incorrect) is racist... kind of like the real title of his "Orgins of the Species" book.
I fully agree that there are no different races of human, but even the genetic diversity within a biblical kind of animal can be misconstrued as proof of evolution. Let's say that the original canine kind had genetic information for both long fur and short fur. With both genes present the fur length would be medium, but their offspring could have long, short, or mediu,m length fur. As some canines moved into colder locations, those who had the longer fur length would be better suited for survival and eventually the short-furred gene may be completely bred out of the isolated population. You'd never know that they originally had such a gene, since a loss of genetic information led to the change in characteristics. Likewise, the canines that migrated towards a hotter location would be better suited for survival if they had short fur, so the long-furred gene could eventually be lost in the isolated group of canines. Since they are all still canines, you could still breed the short furred ones with the long furred ones, but the point is that a loss of genetic information would lead to the change, which I believe is all that we ever witness. Brown bunnies don't get cold and suddenly recieve new genetic information that turns them white so that they can survive by blending into their snowy environment. Just my thoughts on the subject, and I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to comment and share your thoughts. Thanks @stortebeker.
Yes - I don't think Darwin ever said that we came from monkeys, but that we had a common ancestor. But having said that, his theories did "evolve" into eugenics.
And even more of an example than these imossibly cute bunnies, mountain hares, ptarmigans and Arctic foxes demonstrate that the same creature can be brown in summer and white in winter, without changing its character traits :D
I believe that Darwin only said that we shared a common ancestor with monkeys.
Yea I get you racism is a joke. We all come from the same.
Be well guys
Posted using Partiko Android
Glad that you get it. Be well @krazypoet!
Bunny rabbits are always cute!
People should just be viewed the same way - wouldn't that be easier! :)
They're all very adorable. My family used to have rabbits before.
Posted using Partiko Android
Are these fun bunnies or food bunnies?
Fun bunnies, manure-making weed eaters.
Another good example by God in using nature to teach us.