species

But to claim I'm in the wrong is a species of hubris I don't subscribe to.

Hybridization is actually not how new species are created, it normaly only produces fertile offspring when the parents are both membors of the same species just different breeds.

The experiment performs a simple statistical test to measure the accrual of non-synonymous substitutions within a species, and compares it to the accural of NS substitutions between species.

So the link is apt because if one can intelligently design a new species, it has a better chance of changing the environment to its own ends than one of many of an existing species adapted to the status quo.

Polar Bears as a species are older than the last time the Arctic Ocean was free of ice.

The species properties (so map returns the right thing when you subclass Array for example), is even more complex.

This mixing will probably delay the creation of a new species by reducing the genetic differences between the populations.

Made me think of some sort of bloody monument a species of spacefaring conquerors might leave.

We a species have finite resources and can't sink all of them into every patient.

If we can do it to other species, it is no big deal to do it to ours.

Cynicism is not a negative trait, it's the bloody goddamn truth of our species.

Regional climate change is the rule, including changes that melt ice and extinguish species.

A classic "second wave" bioinformatic analysis uses two reference genomes, and a sequenced population of individuals from one of the two species.

I think the worry is the hybrid species might out compete the native red deer, or that fewer "pure" deer of either species will be left if hybridisation continues, as the hybrid offspring will be less picky about sticking to their own kind.