A Proper Gander At Propaganda


PLEASE NOTE: This is not a conspiracy theory blog.

This website exists to serve as public resource for reverse imagineering world-wide culture, one that takes a critical look at the numerous artifacts and other types of relics that represent our shared collective international heritage. This blog is dedicated to examining social engineering and the use of tax funded governmental propaganda, and the mainstream media, as international human resource management tools.

About The AA Morris Proper Gander At Propaganda Podcast: Coming to you from one of the suburban metropolitan melting pots of international culture, outside of one of the multimedia capitals of the world, New York City, the Proper Gander at Propaganda podcast is meant to be a filter free look at our shared international cultural heritage, our shared social media infused and obsessed present, and what our children and their children could be looking forward to. This link will bring you to the podcast page of this website, with embedded squarespace audio: link: http://www.aamorris.net/podcast/

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

AA "The Proper Gander" Morris

Article Index Link  •  Tip Jar Link: For those who wish to support independent media.

Web addresses: www.aamorris.net or www.aamorris.com

Muhammad Ali VS Racial Integration: Birds of A Feather Do Indeed Flock Each Other


Please excuse the inevitable error.


Do You Seek To Manage And Master Your Own Mind or The Minds of Others?

Do you care more about what the others think and why, or do you care more about what you think and why?

How do you define the term "human"? Are all humans human or not? How can we demonstrate if all humans are actually human?

Which associations are fallacious and which associations are based in demonstrable reality?

Which do you credit or discredit?

Association fallacy - Wikipedia


Asking More Questions And Not Getting Too Many Answers: Fighting The Endless Race War


All sorts of political divides are leveraged into social and cultural identities that are used to divide and conquer and to more easily manage the vast global human resource.


Powers and Principalities Episode 3  source: thkelly67



Exploring Intelectual Prejudice

Is it really racism or are I.Q. Test based social engineering projects really just forms of intellectual elitism?

"The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that test takers identifying as White tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites."

Race and intelligence - Wikipedia


Can we not have more questions than answers?

Or do we have to live up to someone's upside down, childish notion of intelligence?

Do I have to live up to your standards? Do you really want to try to live up to the standards I would impose on you? Do you really have any idea what those standards would be? People seem to really love trying to live up to all sorts of standards. Nothing like how good and smart you feel after acing a standardized test, right? The feeling is like a dog treat for one of Pavlov's dogs. Good on you.

"If so, then we must plan our eugenic policy along some such lines as the following:... The lowest strata, allegedly less well-endowed genetically, are reproducing relatively too fast. Therefore birth-control methods must be taught them; they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization, or at least relief should be contingent upon no further children being brought into the world; and so on. That is to say, much of our eugenic programme will be curative and remedial merely, instead of preventive and constructive."

"Here, he does not demean the working class in general, but aims for "the virtual elimination of the few lowest and most degenerate types". The sentiment is not at all atypical of the time, and similar views were held by many geneticists (William E. Castle, C.B. Davenport, H. J. Muller are examples), and by other prominent intellectuals."


Which studies do you base your opinions on and why? Which studies do you trust and which do you dismiss and why?

Does real life experience with people matter? Statistical studies are not demonstrable science and are subject to all sorts of biases, intentional or not. Standardized testing promotes teaching and learning for the test more than actually teaching students how to think critically.

Which studies are valid and which are not? Are not such things more subjective than most of us realize?

Do you base your opinions on one study? Many studies? The opinions of authorities? What are your sources for your ideas?


"IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure intelligence is a 'fallacy', study finds.

Results cast into doubt tests that have been used to link cognitive ability to race, gender and class"

IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure ...

Controversies in Intelligence and Standardized Testing - Boundless

IQ tests are 'meaningless and too simplistic' claim researchers | Daily ...


It's not difficult to find criticism of I.Q. and other standardized tests and the educational system as a whole.


"The IQ Gap Is No Longer a Black and White Issue"

"The fact that black immigrants to the United States have shown achievements that are superior to native black Americans has been a phenomenon studied since at least the 1970′s. At first it was just the Caribbean blacks who were a subject of this unexpected outcome. As black Africans kept immigrating into the US, they showed even higher levels of achievement than the native blacks. Many scholars theorized on the reasons for these differences, from Thomas Sowell’s proposal that this disproved the validity of discrimination against native blacks as an explanation for their underachievement (Sowell, 1978), to other scholars who suggested that these immigrants were just the most highly driven members of their home countries as evidenced by their willingness to migrate to a foreign country (Butcher, 1990).

What most of these theories failed to predict was that the children of these immigrants would also show exceptional achievements, especially academically. It is only in recent years, as the immigrants have stayed long enough to produce a sufficiently high number of offspring, that it has been observed that they are over-represented among high academic achievers, especially when compared to native blacks, particularly at very elite institutions. What has been missed in the IQ debate is the full logical implication of these achievements: they have effectively nullified any arguments for a racial evolutionary explanation of the well-known IQ test score gap between blacks and whites. Even more fatal for the racial hereditarian side of the debate has been the corroborating data of school children performance in the UK, particularly when the black Africans are divided into their respective nationalities and tribal ethnicities, as reported in the latter section of this article."

"Arthur Jensen gave at least two empirical tests that could potentially falsify his thesis of a race based genetic explanation for the black-white IQ gap. Firstly, if the gap is caused by genetic racial differences, the blacks with more white admixture should tend to show a higher IQ than blacks with less whiteness. Secondly, “regression to the mean” implies that children (or siblings) of extraordinarily high IQ blacks should tend to a lower IQ than the children or siblings of similarly high IQ whites. Social experiments concerning the first test have not been decisive, especially due to the difficulty of separating out environmental factors since lighter American blacks have historically faced more favorable socioeconomic conditions. The second test did indicate some evidence of regression to a lower black mean for African Americans, which only means that the racial genetic hypothesis was not nullified; it remained a valid proposition. Until now."

"Using Jensen’s own empirical framework, the racial genetic hypothesis can be tested by comparing black African immigrants with native blacks, intellectually. If the genetic hypothesis is correct, children of elite African blacks will tend to have lower IQs than children of native black Americans, and perhaps even lower than children of low IQ blacks, the same phenomenon observed between American blacks and whites since native blacks are basically “more white” than African (or Caribbean) immigrants.

In the US, it is not only at elite universities where there is a clear over-representation of black immigrant children, it is also at public gifted schools and any kinds of intellectually gifted programs that are highly selective on intelligence. For example, when the New York Times did a story to show the experiences of blacks at Stuyvesant High School in New York, they had to use the personal account of a West Indian black child there (Ann-Marie Miller); if they had many native blacks, that would have certainly been their preferred subject. Furthermore, the only other student who was interviewed for that article, Opraha Miles, a former president of the black student society at Stuyvesant, also just happened to be Jamaican; no black American student was mentioned in the story. A close look at a number of other such institutions shows even more clear evidence of a tendency for black immigrants to be over-represented as selectivity requirements for an academic institution (or complexity of a subject) goes higher."

"The most definitive proof of Africans’ grossly underestimated genotypic IQ (80 according to Lynn, or 70 according to Jensen and Rushton, et al) has come in recent years from the performance of African school children in the UK. These results sparked instant reactions in the IQ debate world as soon as they started being reported by the news media, with some strong hereditarians suddenly becoming some kind of neo-environmentalists just to explain why white school children were not showing the kind of academic superiority over blacks that they have become accustomed to in the United States (wrong tests, declining white culture, an alleged war on whites, etc – the same kinds of reasons they always dismissed from liberal environmentalists explaining black underachievement in the US)."



I know from personal experience as a former student and now a parent that there is validity to the criticism of the educational system and things like standardized testing. I'm not of the opinion that it's all bad or anything like that, I just do think that students are not truly taught how to think and that the system itself is set up for indoctrination more than education, I think this is demonstrably true. I would point to the pledge of allegiance and the way history and science are taught as examples to support my claim. You might think different, and that's good too. Your thoughts are yours to mine and mind.

In a prior blog post I quoted from an article that claimed I.Q. scores were rising as test scores were falling. Make of that what you will.

"Dawn Neely-Randall has seen many things in her 24 years teaching in Ohio schools, but 2014 was different. With the advent of the Common Core State Standards in Ohio, students had to take a pilot version of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) test on top of the standard Ohio Achievement Tests. This amounted to almost eight hours of testing in a single week for Neely-Randall’s fifth graders. One student couldn’t handle the stress of all of these tests and broke down in the middle of one. “She had a complete meltdown,” Neely-Randall told the HPR. “And I could do nothing to help her, I couldn’t help her with the test. I could just let her take a little break then, but then she was going to run out of time, and she was watching the clock, she knew.”"

The Case Against Standardized Testing - Harvard Political Review

What's Wrong With Standardized Tests? | FairTest


The Multiple Choice Test Is But One Kind of Educational Measuring Tool: This isn't "Black & White"

"Multiple-choice tests (MCTs) have long been a source of countless -- and heated -- debates. Plenty of academic articles, books, position papers, conference presentations, government documents, Web sites, Internet chat groups, and kitchen-table talks have commented on the merits (and lack thereof) of MCTs. Before I proceed to add yet another opinion to this bubbling mix, I would like to pose a simple question: Why so much passion? 

If you think about it, multiple-choice is simply one of the many ways to present a mental task (other ways may include open-response questions, essays of various kinds, portfolios, etc.). Why, then, have we educators been devoting so much energy and time arguing about this one format? To me, the answer is straightforward if not often articulated: MCTs provoke so much debate and controversy because they happen to be the most common format of so-called "standardized tests."

Standardized tests (STs) are as ubiquitous and controversial as it gets -- and for a good reason. They are used to assess large groups of individuals competing with each other for either limited resources (such as college admission, scholarships, etc.) or for a certain type of merit certificate (such as a high school diploma). This ongoing competition is ruthless, intense, and high-stakes and is getting more so. In such an environment, the "rules of the game" are bound to be constantly challenged by the groups and individuals who feel that the system is treating them unfairly -- and, of course, defended by those who think that the status quo is just fine. In this fight, convictions are deeply held and opinions are highly polarized.

It would be disingenuous not to admit that many educators have deep reservations about STs. Also, since STs are the "law of the land" at the moment, their opponents, while not outnumbering the supporters, tend to be much more vocal and passionate and attract much more media attention than the supporters can ever hope for. As the feelings of distrust and even hatred toward STs are publicized in the media, the multiple-choice format becomes "guilty by association."

"As a teacher, a freelance test writer, and an educational researcher, I am seriously concerned that a negative attitude toward STs (warranted or not) may be preventing many educators, including my AP-teaching colleagues, from taking a calm, fair look at MCTs and seeing the multiple-choice format for the wonderful educational tool that it is.

I would like to remind my fellow teachers how useful multiple-choice questions can be and to outline some possibilities for using them in the classroom. I will make every attempt to stay away from the politically explosive subject of STs and focus instead on the merits of MCTs as a specific question format -- for use in a classroom setting."



Muhammad Ali:

Birds Of The Same Feathers Always Flock Together

Who Really Feels The Need To Win The Relations Race?

Race Wars & Drugs Wars Are Governmental & Media Promoted Divide & Conquer Wares

If you can admit you have no idea how we got here then you should realize you can come to no solid conclusions about the origins of species altogether. You might choose to avoid confusing some kind of racial based sorting with one's natural inclinations to fall in love and procreate with other human beings. You can define secondary trait differences like skin color, as "race" or "species" or "nothing". Word are symbols and are part of the model and not the reality. Race and species and all the rest of the word menagerie, are social constructs by definition. Anything we do is artificial by definition. 

Who people choose to start families with is their business to attend to. You might also want to avoid confusing pride in your heritage with the achievements of European minds that are not your own. Since you invented nothing, you might want to not cast wheel stones at those who live in the land you now call home. Do you have the intelligence to survive outside like an aborigine? Our civilized lives rely on the effort of countless generation of others. Most of us do not know how to change a tire or fix our own toilet and many online social pundits with strong opinions about indigenous people might want to consider that their opinions might be more based on social and artifice than the world of Nature.

These are just ideas of course. You are free to define reality as you desire. You might want to consider your own lack of ability to survive without civilization before peering down your nose at the natural human being. You might also want to admit that you use technology, but you did not invent any of it, you exist in a world created by the effort and discovery and art of others, you really are in no position to cast stones at anyone.

When You Assume You Make An Ass Out of You

If you realize humanity is not as smart nor as wise as advertised, you might also want to look in the mirror.

Black Cocker Spaniels Can & Do Breed With White Cocker Spaniels

Muhammad Ali seems to have thought that all humans are not human. (Video clip below) All humans can procreate. Ali confuses cultural conditioning with secondary characteristics. He is confusing secondary traits and differences with basic and demonstrable biology. Human beings can procreate and all intermingle as he himself states and admits. If we could not do this, he would have a point. But since we can all procreate, and again he does not claim otherwise, Ali is simply wrong and he seems to be trying to milk racial division. By the way if we could not procreate, Ali would have nothing or at least little to complain about or critique. Ali is entitled to his opinion, however seemingly uneducated, Nature herself has other "ideas", which we might call demonstrable truth.

Ali seems to be afraid of some imagined far off future of that would lack racial diversity. Ali is a great Platonic Cave Shadow boxer, is he not?

Has Ali ever seen a litter of kittens? 

Like any good propagandist, some of his parroted speech makes sense and some is nothing but nonsense. Ali even brings up the fact that people love their culture as some kind of defense of his position. He undercuts his own position and does not seem to notice nor care. Concern over maintaining one's cultural identity seems to be the real issue here, not some kind of scientific statement of fact. We can demonstrate that nature does indeed intend us to procreate with each other, no matter our skin color or hair type, or other secondary genetic difference.

Ali would seem to be concerned about losing his cultural identity. If he wasn't full of it, he was simply being an emotional human being.

The funny thing is that the cultural identity to which Ali seems to cling is a post Civil War, American construct that does not even represent any kind of original African family or clan based culture.


The differences between the different races of humanity are a lot more like the genetic differences between families than any other kind of biological difference. There would seem to be logic to the idea of the allegorical Twelves Tribes of Israel. For all we know environmental conditions alter and shape our forms over countless cycles of time. Between possible long term effects of diet and possible environmental (radiation) type effect, is it not reasonable to imagine that we are of one heritage that has spread and adapted itself all over this vast globe? Can we not consider that a possibility?

We can demonstrate that we can procreate with each other, no matter which race we belong to, and that is literally demonstrable science.


By the way birds of the same kind of feathers do not always "flock together" and Ali is not as correct as he seems to think he is.

"The Greatest Black Irish: Mohammed Ali Traces his Roots to Ireland ..."

"One of Muhammad’s maternal great-great-grandfathers, Armstead S. Morehead, was caucasian, and had English and Scottish ancestry. Through this great-great-grandfather, Muhammad was also descended from Bartholomew Taliaferro, an Italian man who moved to England in the 1500s."


Muhammad Ali Was Himself A Natural Product That Resulted From An Interracial Union

Muhammad Ali - Racial Integration  source: guyjohn59

A White Irishman

"Little is known about the Grady side of the family, except that a cousin of Muhammad Ali recalls hearing that John Grady's father was born to a black woman and a "white Irishman" named Grady, or perhaps O'Grady. 

But the Moreheads - the parents of Birdie Morehead Grady, the grandparents of Odessa Grady Clay, the great-grandparents of Muhammad Ali - are another story. The Moreheads were special. Gillie Bell Morehead Plunkett is not certain of her age. She could be 80 - or 90. She has lived in Louisville for almost a half century, but she was born a Morehead in rural Logan County, Ky., 140 miles southwest of Louisville, and she is the keeper of her family's history."

"My grandfather was half white. I never knew what his father's first name was, but he was a Morehead, a white man, and he had Tom by a slave woman named Dinah. I was always told that. At about the same time, that Morehead man and his white wife had a son named James. Jim and Tom were half brothers - they grew up together, played together, worked together. They were real close. After Tom married, he named his first son Jim - that was my uncle, my father's brother." 

Heritage of a Heavyweight - The New York Times


Cassius Clay Throws Caution To The Wind

Muhammad Ali seems to be against all forms of integration but I guess he is not against working in what would have seemed to have been a predominately white male industry of media punditry that was being integrated. In fact the sport he participated in was an integrated endeavor, no?

Olympic Level Athletes Are Part of The Show Folks:

Like Bruce Jenner, Ali Seems Like a Propagandist Playing A Part, This Part Requires He Play The Old Racial Division Canard Card

Muhammad Ali - Wikipedia


Are we birds or are we men and women?

"A bird hybrid is a bird that has two different species as parents. The resulting bird can present with any combination of characters from the parent species, from totally identical to completely different. Usually, the bird hybrid shows intermediate characteristics between the two species. A “successful” hybrid is one demonstrated to produce fertile offspring after mating."


Avian Affairs: When is a duck not defined as a duck?

"Q. Does bird mating ever cross the species line?

A. “Many birds occasionally mate with members of other bird species, producing hybrid offspring,” said Irby J. Lovette, director of the Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

In fact, Dr. Lovette said, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity.

For example, in the eastern United States, native black ducks have hybridized so often with the more abundant mallard ducks that pure black ducks have become rare.

Hybridization tends to occur between species that are closely related, Dr. Lovette said, but an individual from one genus may occasionally form a pair with a bird from an altogether different genus, separated by many millions of years of evolutionary divergence.

Some groups of birds are particularly prone to hybridization, he said, adding:

“Experienced bird watchers know to watch out for the occasional hybrid gull or duck that exhibits an odd mix of its parents’ colors and behaviors. Often, however, hybrids die young, and even when hybrid offspring survive until adulthood, they may be sterile or have trouble attracting mates.”

When hybrid offspring do not pass on their genes, the mating that produced them cannot be considered totally successful from an evolutionary perspective, Dr. Lovette said. Indeed, much of the entrancing diversity of the avian world, like colors, plumes, songs and bizarre mating displays, “has arisen in part because these differences help female birds avoid accidental matings with a male of a different species,” he said.  "



"Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however, they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and "The Talented Tenth" of all races should mix.  W. E. B. Du Bois believed "only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race's heritage of moral iniquity." "

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia



"Melanin is produced by cells called melanocytes in a process called melanogenesis. Melanin is made within small membrane–bound packages called melanosomes. As they become full of melanin, they move into the slender arms of melanocytes, from where they are transferred to the keratinocytes. Under normal conditions, melanosomes cover the upper part of the keratinocytes and protect them from genetic damage. One melanocyte supplies melanin to thirty-six keratinocytes according to signals from the keratinocytes. They also regulate melanin production and replication of melanocytes.[7] People have different skin colors mainly because their melanocytes produce different amount and kinds of melanin."



Please Meet Aristotle: The Intellectual Tax Man

(Aristotle) "His other innovation was binomial definition. "Binomial" means "two names," and according to this system each kind of organism can be defined by the two names of its "genus and difference." The word "genus" comes from the Greek root for "birth," and among its meanings are "family" and "race." Aristotle's notion of definition was to place every object in a family and then to differentiate it from the other members of that family by some unique characteristic. He defined humans, for example, as the "rational animal." This, according to Aristotelian thought, defines the essence of what it is to be human, as opposed to such pseudo-definitions as "featherless biped." "

systems of botanical classification

"By the time Carl (Carolus) Linnaeus (1707-1778) was born, there were many systems of botanical classification in use, with new plants constantly being discovered and named. This, in fact, was the problem — there were too many inconsistent systems, and the same plant might have several different scientific names, according to different methods of classification.

During his childhood, Linnaeus was so fond of collecting plants that he was known as "the little botanist." He later became a physician, as so many other early taxonomists did, but returned to botany as his primary study.

He published his most innovative work as a young man in 1735. The System of Nature(Systema Naturae) is notable for an overall framework of classification that organized all plants and animals from the level of kingdoms all the way down to species. The full subtitle of its tenth edition was: System of nature through the three kingdoms of nature, according to classes, orders, genera and species, with characteristics, differences, synonyms, places. This system of classification, although greatly modified, is essentially the one we use today."


What Class Do You Belong To?

A question of clarifying the system of classifications.

Classification History Notes  source: Beverly Biology

Dog Poop Smells Like Roses: A Canine By Any Other Name Is Still A Canine

Genetic Considerations

The side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal would seem to be examples that could be used to support the idea of evolution. This is not a "slam dunk" or anything like that, but the concept would be that these two kinds of jackals have been naturally selected into the forms that can no longer breed with other canines. This is at least makes sense but does not prove anything as there are all sorts of other possible explanations for the apparent phenomena.

"Members of the dog genus Canis: wolves, dogs (both common dogs and dingoes), coyotes, and golden jackals cannot interbreed with members of the wider dog family: the Canidae, such as South American canids, foxes, African wild dogs, bat-eared foxes or raccoon dog; or, if they could, their offspring would be infertile.

Members of the genus Canis species can, however, all interbreed to produce fertile offspring, with two exceptions: the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal. Although these two theoretically could interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring, they cannot hybridize successfully with the rest of the genus Canis.

The reason for this lies in their genetics. The wolf, dingo, dog, coyote, and golden jackal diverged relatively recently, around three to four million years ago, and all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridize freely (barring size or behavioral constraints) and produce fertile offspring. The side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal both have 74 chromosomes. Other members of the Canidae family, which diverged seven to ten million years ago, are less closely related to and cannot hybridize with the wolf-like canids; the red fox has 38 chromosomes, the raccoon dog has 42 chromosomes, the fennec fox has 64 chromosomes, and the African wild dog has 78 chromosomes."

"The wolf and jackal can interbreed and produce fertile hybrid offspring, which are sometimes known as huskals. Coyote–jackal hybrids have also been bred as pets by wolfdog enthusiasts. Dogs have been crossed with golden jackals. It is also thought that Pharoanic Egyptians crossbred domestic dogs with jackals, producing a jackal-dog that resembled the god Anubis.

The reason golden jackals differ in chromosome number is most likely because golden jackals have two pairs of chromosomes that are twice as long but contain gene content similar to four pairs of dog chromosomes. This might reduce fertility, but it would not likely completely sterilize golden jackal–dog hybrids."

"In The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication Charles Darwin wrote:

Several years ago I saw confined in the Zoological Gardens of London a female hybrid from an English dog and jackal, which even in this the first generation was so sterile that, as I was assured by her keeper, she did not fully exhibit her proper periods; but this case, from numerous instances have occurred of fertile hybrids from these two animals, was certainly exceptional.[6]

Robert Armitage Sterndale mentioned experimental jackal hybrids from British India in his Natural History of Mammals in India and Ceylon, noting that glaring jackal traits could be exhibited in hybrids even after three generations of crossing them with dogs[7]

In Russia, golden jackal/Lapponian herder hybrids were bred as sniffer dogs because jackals have a superior sense of smell and Lapponian herders are good cold climate dogs. Also, fox terrier, Norwegian lundehund, and Spitz blood were combined to create the Sulimov dog. As well as a superior sense of smell, important at low temperatures where substances are less volatile and therefore less pungent, Sulimov dogs are small-sized and can work in confined spaces. When tired, their normally curled tails droop, making it clear to the handler that the dog needs to be rested. The jackal hybrids were bred by Klim Sulimov, senior research assistant at the D.S. Likhachev Scientific Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Environmental Protection in Russia. Male jackal pups had to be fostered on a husky bitch in order to imprint the jackals on dogs. Female jackals accepted male huskies more readily. The half-bred jackal-dogs were difficult to train and were bred back to huskies to produce quarter-bred hybrids (quadroons). These hybrids were small, agile, trainable and had an excellent sense of smell. Twenty-five jackal-dog hybrids are used by Aeroflot at Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow for functions including bomb-sniffing. Their breeding program dates back to 1975, but it was not applied to bomb detection until 2002."

Canid Hybrids: Interbreeding between different species of canines

A Taxing Enterprise

"Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek: τάξις taxis, "arrangement", and -νομία -nomia, "method"[1]) is the science of defining and naming groups of biological organismson the basis of shared characteristics. Organisms are grouped together into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy.[2][3] The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus is regarded as the father of taxonomy, as he developed a system known as Linnaean classification for categorization of organisms and binomial nomenclature for naming organisms.

With the advent of such fields of study as phylogenetics, cladistics, and systematics, the Linnaean system has progressed to a system of modern biological classification based on the evolutionary relationships between organisms, both living and extinct."

"The exact definition of taxonomy varies from source to source, but the core of the discipline remains: the conception, naming, and classification of groups of organisms.[4] As points of reference, recent definitions of taxonomy are presented below:

Theory and practice of grouping individuals into species, arranging species into larger groups, and giving those groups names, thus producing a classification[2]

A field of science (and major component of systematics) that encompasses description, identification, nomenclature, and classification[3]

The science of classification, in biology the arrangement of organisms into a classification[5]

"The science of classification as applied to living organisms, including study of means of formation of species, etc."[6]

"The analysis of an organism's characteristics for the purpose of classification"[7]

"[Systematics] studies phylogeny to provide a pattern that can be translated into the classification and names of the more inclusive field of taxonomy" (listed as a desirable but unusual definition)[8]

The varied definitions either place taxonomy as a sub-area of systematics (definition 2), invert that relationship (definition 6), or appear to consider the two terms synonymous. There is some disagreement as to whether biological nomenclature is considered a part of taxonomy (definitions 1 and 2), or a part of systematics outside taxonomy.[9] For example, definition 6 is paired with the following definition of systematics that places nomenclature outside taxonomy:[7]

Systematics: "The study of the identification, taxonomy and nomenclature of organisms, including the classification of living things with regard to their natural relationships and the study of variation and the evolution of taxa".

A whole set of terms including taxonomy, systematic biology, systematics, biosystematics, scientific classification, biological classification, and phylogenetics have at times had overlapping meanings – sometimes the same, sometimes slightly different, but always related and intersecting.[4][10] The broadest meaning of "taxonomy" is used here. The term itself was introduced in 1813 by Candolle, in his Théorie élémentaire de la botanique."

"Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek: τάξις taxis, "arrangement", and -νομία -nomia, "method"[1]) is the science of defining and naming groups of biological organismson the basis of shared characteristics. Organisms are grouped together into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy.[2][3] The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus is regarded as the father of taxonomy, as he developed a system known as Linnaean classification for categorization of organisms and binomial nomenclature for naming organisms.

With the advent of such fields of study as phylogenetics, cladistics, and systematics, the Linnaean system has progressed to a system of modern biological classification based on the evolutionary relationships between organisms, both living and extinct."



Color Terminology:

"One of the earlier uses of the concept of "black" as a metaphor for race was first used at the end of the 17th century when a French doctor named François Bernier (1625–1688), an early proponent of scientific racism, divided up humanity based on facial appearance and body type. He proposed four categories: Europeans, Far Easterners, Lapps, and Blacks.[2] The first major scientific model was created in the 18th century when Carl Linnaeus recognized four main races: Europeanus which he labeled the white race, Asiaticus, which he labeled the yellow race, Americanus, which he labeled the red race, and Africanus, which he labeled the black race.[3]

By adding the brown race, which he called "Malay" for Polynesians, Melanesians of Pacific Islands, and aborigines of Australia,[4] Linnaeus' protégé Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840) divided humanity into five broad classes based primarily on skull shape (craniometry) - each approximately corresponding to a range of skin colors. He termed these five groups :the Caucasian or white race; the Mongolian or yellow race; the Malayan or brown race; the Ethiopian or black race; and the American or red race. According to conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza, "Blumenbach's classification had a lasting influence in part because his categories neatly broke down into familiar tones and colors: white, black, yellow, red, and brown."



Is Science Really "Black & White" and Always Right?

How do you define species?

Which terms do you think better define  "evolution":  settled science or metaphysical musing? Are humans of one race, or one species? Are we all different species? How do you define such things? Are we not allowed to not come to any conclusions? Differences between the so-called and categorized "races" amount to familial trait differences. Human beings can procreate with each other despite all such secondary differences. This is demonstrable science. 

Can we not have more questions than answers?

Or do we have to live up to someone's upside down, childish notion of intelligence?

"The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.[1] A species concept that works well for sexually reproducing organisms such as birds is useless for species that reproduce asexually, such as bacteria. The scientific study of the species problem has been called microtaxonomy.[2]

One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an organism belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable, and cryptic species may be present. There is a continuum from total reproductive isolation (no interbreeding) to panmixis, unlimited interbreeding. Populations can move forward or backwards along this continuum, at any point meeting the criteria for one or another species concept, and failing others.

Many of the debates on species touch on philosophical issues, such as nominalism and realism, and on issues of language and cognition.

The current meaning of the phrase "species problem" is quite different from what Charles Darwin and others meant by it during the 19th and early 20th centuries.[3] For Darwin, the species problem was the question of how new species arose. Darwin was however one of the first people to question how well-defined species are, given that they constantly change."

Species problem


Divide & Conquer Comics Presents

An Us V Them Production of:

Print Vs Live Action Cartoons Fight To Save The World!

Superman vs. Muhammad Ali (Part 1 of 2)  source: Comics Fighters

Back To The Birds

Are these really examples of different species or are we seeing birds of the same so-called "species" with just different secondary traits? It seems to me if you can procreate and the resulting offspring can do the same, you are of the same "species".

But hey what do I know? Your multiverse version of Earth might have Mandela Effects that magically cause your results & reality to vary.


Duck, Duck , Goose, Swan?

Let me get this straight, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is called a duck, can mate with a duck, yet it is a different "species" of "duck'? Does this make sense to you? Seems to me there might be something wrong with genetic based science.


Where's Turducken on This List?

"Goose hybrids, including Canada goose x greylag goose, emperor goose x Canada goose, red-breasted goose x Canada goose, Canada goose x white-fronted goose and barnacle goose x Canada goose see also Gamebird hybrids.

"Swoose" , an intergeneric hybrid of a swan and a goose (Cygnus sp. x Branta sp.)[1]

Hybrid swans, such as the Black Swan x Mute Swan (Cygnus atratus x Cygnus olor)

Hybrid ducks of the genus Aythya, including birds which are a mixture of tufted duck, greater scaup, common pochard, ferruginous duck and ring-necked duck

Other hybrid ducks, including northern pintail x mallard, ruddy duck x white-headed duck, ruddy shelduck x common shelduck, white-faced whistling duck x plumed whistling duck, Baikal teal x northern pintail, hooded merganser x smew, Eurasian wigeon x American wigeon and mallard x New Zealand black duck. See also Mariana mallard and Gamebird hybrids.

Gamebird hybrids, including capercaillie x common pheasant, capercaillie x black grouse (rackelhahn) and Lady Amherst's pheasant x golden pheasant

Hybrids of domestic fowl, including chicken x common pheasant, chicken x guinea fowl, and guinea fowl x peafowl see also Gamebird hybrids

Hybrid gull, including glaucous gull x herring gull and lesser black-backed gull x yellow-legged gull

see main article hybridisation in gulls

Several other families of Charadriiformes (shorebirds/waders)

see main article Hybridisation in shorebirds and Cox's sandpiper

Red kite x black kite (unintended, in a falconry center)

Eagle hybrids, including golden eagle, x eastern imperial eagle, lesser spotted eagle x greater spotted eagle,

Falcon hybrides include the perlin: peregrine falcon x merlin

Penguins hybrid, including

interspecific hybrids:

Eudyptes chrysolophus (macaroni penguin) X Eudyptes .sp (rockhopper penguin) X Eudyptes schlegeli (royal penguin) commonly known as the 'machopper penguin'

Aptenodytes patagonicus (king penguin) X Aptenodytes forsteri (emperor penguin) commonly named the 'kingemperor' hybrid penguin.

Eudyptes chrysolophus (macaroni penguin) X Eudyptes .sp (rockhopper penguin) commonly known as the 'machopper penguin'. "


 Presuppositions and Paradigms Filter All Our Minds

Jay w/Hoax Busters: Darwinian Materialism as Metaphysical Presupposition  source: Jay Dyer

"I called into the Hoax Buster's Call to discuss the crucial subject of how presuppositions and paradigms function as templates to interpret "facts." There are no "brute facts" that come un-interpreted, outside of some contextual framework or worldview. In this discussion we investigate how the human mind categorizes the "data" or experience and how our governing assumptions about life and the world determine what the "facts" are, which constitute evidence and/or which are rejected and reinterpreted based on our beliefs (even we presume ourselves to be perfectly "neutral" and "empirical"). Chris and I cover the similarity of the events of 9/11 and so-called "evidence," with Darwinian naturalistic materialism, and how these will be interpreted to fit the underlying belief structure. Until the presuppositions are challenged, the "evidence" will always be stretched or cut to fit "the facts," as demonstrated in Thomas Kuhn's famous book, The Structures of Scientific Revolutions. Only when this, and the countless instances of reliance on the fallacy of consensus and authority are properly understood, is Darwinian naturalism truly unmasked as nonsensical, irrational, contradictory and intellectually bankrupt.

Also covered is the amazing truth that DNA does not create new information, only existing information "switches" that are alternately on or off. As a result, "species" do not mutate into completely different forms - the bear does not become aquatic by swimming often. (Adaptation only allows for existing DNA information to function anew, and "adaptation" is not transformism - that new "species" arise)."       Jay Dyer