I don't have any problem with you, honestly. You displayed enough knowledge in the area to satisfy me.

Except he is saying the same thing as me smart ass. You just are angry for no reason, get over it.

What you are willing to do is of no concern of mine. I didn't ignore any part of your post. I just found your post to just be that offensively ignorant. Your internet definition states that species cannot interbreed. I have proven through various examples that this is not true. I don't know where you are going to school but you should probably try to get your money back.

@erik: And i already told you that if they can't reproduce them self it wasn't successful, once again ignoring part of my post.

Yeah but I think his point is that I'm actually backing my argument with my own textbook on hand as a source. Sorry man

If I am the one that is angry, why are you the one swearing? He might have said the same thing as you but he has displayed a vastly superior understanding of biology than you have in his posts. This is why he has satisfied me with his knowledge. And as an educated man, he has also acknowledged counter-examples. He is in every way, your superior. Even if he may have been initially as incorrect as you stubbornly insist on being now. Actually, that's not even true. He never was as incorrect as you because unlike you, he was backing up this arguments with noteworthy sources.

Haha, basic internet comeback. I used the word ass so I'm wrong XD.

Wrong again. A successful reproduction is simply to reproduce. The onus of successful reproduction then falls onto the next generation. Nothing was ignored if I addressed it. Especially if I have to address the same sad point several times.

No. You're wrong because your argument has been systematically taken apart. We can infer that you are mad because you are swearing.

Here i'll actually move forward in said argument since yours consists of nothing but bs and saying you are right for the sake of it. The only argument that you have use that holds ground is the baboon one (I think that was the animal right?)(Also you didn't included me in this point) Any way if they are indeed different species and can make an off spring which can make an off spring then it was nothing more than a misclassification. Whether that means we need to group them in the same species or we need a new definition of species is a completely different argument.

Take a look at the dog, many different versions but all the same species. Personally, i think if a dog wasn't a well known animal it prob would be split into different spices out of just ignorance and not doing enough research before making a decision, same as the animal you gave as an example. Also if you tell me that doesn't happen then Pluto was never classified as planet at one time. (Which obviously isn't true.)

Nope, you are wrong. If you put your genetic material into a dead end that is the parents fault.

@goobot: Yes, science is wrong and you, you sir are the one to point it out. Bravo! Be sure to collect your Nobel Prize with your humpy-dumpty logic and science supported by Google searches.

Haha, nice comeback, enjoy your butthurt, i'll enjoy being right. Also if you become a doctor be sure to let me know, don't want you operating on me.

You are the only one that has shown that they lack composure here. Making up your own nonsensical classifications in science doesn't make you right either. But I'm not at all surprised that you would think you can. Don't worry about me operating on you. Odds are your disease/dysfunction will be well outside my field of intended expertise. Heart surgeons don't really operate on many people that step out in front of buses after insisting they can alter the laws of physics with a Google search.

Once again not actually proving me wrong, i have shown my point but yours are straight up hilarious. It amazing how high you think of your self, you must be Jesus or something. Also science is nothing more than a collection of theories made by fellow humans, the fact you think other wise shows how much you know. Since you no longer want to discuss on an actual scientifical level and have resorted to nothing more than names i have no longer have a desire to reply to you. Feel free to reply back but i am no longer wasting my time looking or replying to them. So vent all you want if that makes you feel better.

• ... You do understand that people can actually read the previous posts, right? So lying about the hilarity of my posts (at least where I wasn't being intentionally funny) just makes you a liar and a sore loser.
• I don't need to be Jesus to be smarter than you.
• LOL you act as though you have had an actual scientific discussion. Copy/pasting Google search definitions is not making scientific discussions, nor it is even contributing to one. Neither is making unsupported claims from your armchair pseudo-science theories.

How does every discussion with Erik end in some sort of elitist argument involving very passive aggressive insults and calling each other out over the most minute things?

I bring out the best in people.

@erik: I enjoy a intense discussion every now and then the but the fun is drained when it gets personal. Unless we are talking about real current events, politics, or religion I don't see a reason to get so "passionate" in the discussion. Then again we are calling each other out based on scientific knowledge so I can get why you science majors would get heated, honestly it's not too different from what goes on in my classes interestingly enough.

My philosophy class was actually a class where I thought things were getting a little too hot. Even I got uncomfortable lol.

I dont think its a race i think its more on SPECIE a more evolved human specie

These issues must be raised in X-comics as well, this could be a risk though.

@oldnightcrawler:

biologically the only thing that unites them as separate from the rest of humanity is that one X-gene, which really isn't enough of a distinction itself to even consider them all their own subspecies.

Why?

So. Guys are you all saying that gingers are a separate race aswell?

In case any of you didnt know ginger people are caused by a mutation in our genes, a faulty gene

why aren't they considered their own subspecies if the are all united by a common genetic difference?

because it's only one gene. I'm pretty sure that's not enough of a difference from other humans or with each other to be considered a subspecies, technically.

Show me that redhead that can read minds or shape-shift, and I'll say your point is legit.

That "only one gene" turns mortals into gods, I'd say much more significant than whatever multiple genetic changes happened to Homo erectus that turned them into Homo sapiens. I am not pretending to understand much in biology, but you're applying real-life logic on fiction, on possibilities that are not possible in our world, but if they were, they would also change the perspective from which these conclusions were made.

Gallery

This is why the perception of "one gene is not enough" becomes invalid the second this single gene allows us to metamorphose this way.

That's a totally fair point. I guess from that perspective it's more like mutants with the X-gene are an evolutionary step foreword from other humans, even if we don't have the right technical terminology to describe how.

They don't fit the criteria of being their own race or subspecies, yet still share a significant genetic distinction that unites them as separate from the rest of humanity. So you're question is, if they aren't aren't a race and they aren't a subspecies, what do we call what they are?

But we already have a term for that singular category: Mutants. That's why we spell it with a capital M, right? because it's a term that's applied to category of human beings, distinct from the general definition of the word.

But the thing is, as your question sort of points out, if this singular distinction is enough to see them as categorically distinct from the rest of humanity, then do we or do we not? And I don't think that's a question that's really meant to have a definitive answer -hence the vagueness of their category- because it's at the crux of their entire premise.

Magneto says we do, Xavier says we do not, and it becomes a question of what is it that actually makes any of us truly distinct or truly human, because do we really want biology to answer that question?

I dont know if we can call Mutants a race or not, but is it really important?

This thread had taught me more about genetics than high school biology.

@oldnightcrawler:

I guess from that perspective it's more like mutants with the X-gene are an evolutionary step foreword from other humans, even if we don't have the right technical terminology to describe how.

They don't fit the criteria of being their own race or subspecies, yet still share a significant genetic distinction that unites them as separate from the rest of humanity. So you're question is, if they aren't aren't a race and they aren't a subspecies, what do we call what they are?

That is my exact question. I think X-comics and their pseudo-science have to deal with it on a same level they deal with all their issues. I can totally see a plot where some PAN defends a doctoral dissertation of why mutants are humans or vice versa.

But we already have a term for that singular category: Mutants. That's why we spell it with a capital M, right? because it's a term that's applied to category of human beings, distinct from the general definition of the word.

Well, Mr. Kaga already proved how this term is actually invalid to determine their kind (absolutely great concept, mediocre execution :(). Mutations are everywhere, and they don't necessarily share a genetic code.

But the thing is, as your question sort of points out, if this singular distinction is enough to see them as categorically distinct from the rest of humanity, then do we or do we not? And I don't think that's a question that's really meant to have a definitive answer -hence the vagueness of their category- because it's at the crux of their entire premise.

Well, there's no crux, everything is pretty defined in MU - the are a race, even a species, humanity distinguishes them, they distinguish themselves, which is pretty one-dimensional and lame actually.

Magneto says we do, Xavier says we do not, and it becomes a question of what is it that actually makes any of us truly distinct or truly human, because do we really want biology to answer that question?

The first character that said they're not is Havok, Xavier never (not that I recall) phrased it as they are the same, I mean "peaceful CO-existence" doesn't stand for similarity as it stands for unity, which isn't the same.

But I more than agree with the second part of your statement, that's exactly what "mutant" metaphor should stand for, above all the repetitive "civil rights" and "intolerance".

@adamtrmm:

"Well, Mr. Kaga already proved how this term is actually invalid to determine their kind (absolutely great concept, mediocre execution :(). Mutations are everywhere, and they don't necessarily share a genetic code"

Well, mutations are everywhere, but Mutants have claimed the word as what they identify as that distinguishes them from the rest of humanity. It's not as if it's inaccurate, so much as that it's not especially specific. Since what specifically unites them is the presence of the X-gene, it would actually be more accurate to refer to them all as X-men (as in homo x-genus; men or women with the X-gene), but that would just be confusing for reasons I assume are obvious.

"Well, there's no crux, everything is pretty defined in MU - the(y) are a race, even a species, humanity distinguishes them, they distinguish themselves, which is pretty one-dimensional and lame actually"

Just because the characters (or the writers) distinguish themselves that way doesn't mean they are technically correct in doing so.

Maybe if more writers had an appreciation of the subtly singular distinction that Mutants have (rather than force them into a specific allegory of some actual discrimination), people wouldn't have such a hard time with this subject, but maybe that's because I'm inclined to think of the stories as more symbolic and metaphorical than literally allegorical.

"But I more than agree with the second part of your statement, "it becomes a question of what is it that actually makes any of us truly distinct or truly human, because do we really want biology to answer that question?" -that's exactly what "mutant" metaphor should stand for, above all the repetitive "civil rights" and "intolerance"."

yeah, well, part of what I like about the metaphor is that it can be used to address those themes, but doesn't mean that it should have to be limited by them, as it still applies to many other great humanistic themes besides.

Mutants are a different species apparently.

@oldnightcrawler:

Well, mutations are everywhere, but Mutants have claimed the word as what they identify as that distinguishes them from the rest of humanity. It's not as if it's inaccurate, so much as that it's not especially specific. Since what specifically unites them is the presence of the X-gene, it would actually be more accurate to refer to them all as X-men (as in homo x-genus; men or women with the X-gene), but that would just be confusing for reasons I assume are obvious.

Exactly, so we do agree that this is more complicated than it looks like.

Just because the characters (or the writers) distinguish themselves that way doesn't mean they are technically correct in doing so.

Ok, just because you don't, doesn't mean you're correct as well.

Maybe if more writers had an appreciation of the subtly singular distinction that Mutants have (rather than force them into a specific allegory of some actual discrimination), people wouldn't have such a hard time with this subject, but maybe that's because I'm inclined to think of the stories as more symbolic and metaphorical than literally allegorical.

True, that doesn't change the fact mutants in some way are distinct from humanity. I mean even if they are a separate species/race, what difference does it make for the stories?

yeah, well, part of what I like about the metaphor is that it can be used to address those themes, but doesn't mean that it should have to be limited by them, as it still applies to many other great humanistic themes besides.

Not limited, only expanded further.

I do not believe that 'mutants' in Marvel are currently a separate species. They are still capable of breeding with 'baseline' humans, and the mutations are too wildly different. It seems more like nature is testing out what it wants to make humans into next. It might not be exclusively one or the other. Right now it seems to be leaning toward Psychic (Jean Grey) or Feral (Wolverine.)

However, there is a third possibility. Humanity's minds might expand without a physical alteration. (Dr. Doom, Reed Richards, Stark.)

Or a combination of multiple aspects of that. (Beast, Mandril, Prof X.)

agreed.

although, when you mention the different ways that X-gene mutations are evolving humans, I feel like the two most reoccurring themes are either physically strengthening the body from harm (Wolverine, Colossus, Kitty, or even Storm, etc) on one end of the spectrum and and evolving beyond the need for a specific physical body (telepaths or non-corporeal beings like Malice, Shadow King, Rockslide, Iceman, etc) on the other end.

And, as you point out, humans have adapted through science, technology, and even magic to be able to achieve these same types of adaptations even without the X-gene, implying that it's only one of many factors that's at play in the transition to a more evolved species of humans. Great points.