You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

15
-11

[–] 9-11 15 points -11 points (+4|-15) ago 

This isn't speciation though, there is zero evidence of speciation ever occurring.

1
10

[–] CrudOMatic 1 point 10 points (+11|-1) ago  (edited ago)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

No matter how many times it's plopped in your lap, you keep saying it never happened - then move the goalposts by saying that no dog has ever turned into a cat. Of course if that's what you defined speciation as, then you'll never get it... and if you ever did, it would invalidate evolution.

At this point I can't begin to understand how creatards manage to wipe their own asses.

2
-2

[–] 9-11 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

moving goalposts

Isn't that what you've done by redefining adaptation? You even admit as much in this comment.

3
2

[–] Anonymous_User_69 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

All the fucktards on voat don't seem to realize this. The fact that the bird was able to reproduce with the other birds and have viable offspring means they were already the same species. This is no more groundbreaking than half Asian half white people.

1
3

[–] ZYX321 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Unfortunately the definition of species isn't that straightforward, nor is there a specific definition or test agreed upon by all biologists.

The different breeds of dog would probably meet most tests for species if they occurred like that in the wild but would obviously still be able to breed. I believe grizzly and polar bears can breed.

1
0

[–] middle_path 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

The fact that the bird was able to reproduce with the other birds and have viable offspring means they were already the same species.

You know lions and tigers can have children together, right? Also, what's a mule?

1
0

[–] chirogonemd 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The ability to breed and produce a viable offspring from a single breeding event is not sufficient to define two separate animals as being the same species. A lion and a tiger can mate and produce a "viable" offspring. A horse and a donkey can. You find that the rules tend to bend depending on the class. You may find biologists responsible for discovering two different frogs separated by 20 miles on a river will name these different species despite their ability to interbreed and being almost largely the same, except for occupying a different micro-habitat and possibly displaying some different behaviors.

The real issue is mongrelization. The offspring of two different 'species' may be viable, but over time genetic defects occur and accumulate, eventually leading to non-viability after a few generations. Intelligence will decrease. Fertility may be gone very quickly, and a first generation hybrid may be sterile.

But all humans are the same! Um, okay. Race mixing leads to mongrelization. This was a very specifically outlined goal of the Kalergi Plan. They realize that race mixing in humans leads to mongrel offspring, with the more events occuring over successive generations leading to greater and greater dilution of the favorable intelligence of the white european genetics.

1
-1

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Ignorance is voluntary.

0
0

[–] Grospoliner ago 

I don't know. Given the genetic disparity in IQ across ethnic groups, there might be a one for stupidity beyond that of inbreeding.