new 'mal is out
>>5066273I look like this and do this.
>>5066273We’re never gonna discover cool shit ever again like mokole-mbembe and it’s just pallet-swap rats and bacteria from here on out isn’t it?
>>5066273I give it a B+. It seems like a cool beast
>>5066317that's not what he was saying, illiterate anon.
>>5066313>and it’s just pallet-swap rats and bacteria from here on out isn’t it?Even those are dying out>>5066317I think he meant like prehistoric fauna in general despite mokole not being real>>5066273Cute little nigga
>>5066358I meant animals unknown to science or previously thought extinct yeah any of the above. Coelocanths, Bigfoot, giant ground sloths, some random shit we’ve never seen, etc. IIRC wasn’t a huge species of never before identified whale documented recently? Like a beaked whale or some mini blue whale or something?
>>5066273MUNDO COOLO
Neat. How long until it becomes extinct? I'm betting 50 years.
>>5066408why do fags say shit like this? Do you brainlets seriously think the world is gonna conflagrate out of the hubris of man's what... logging? Driving vehicles that use one mechanism of fossil fuel extraction over another? Not kowtowing enough to pedophiles in government? Just shut the fuck up already, goddamn.
>>5066374>IIRC wasn’t a huge species of never before identified whale documented recently? Like a beaked whale or some mini blue whale or something?Yeah but that’s just a case of it looking so similar to already known and more common whales that when people do see them they don’t even notice they’re different. It’s only when someone gets a DNA sample that anyone realises they’re new
>>5066530nigger what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? He's saying>We're never going to discover anything cool anymore huh?and because he says one of the words your programming deems unacceptable you jump on his hog as if he's saying literally anything other than>We're never gonna discover anything cool anymore huh?like goddamn you're fucking stupid
>>5066550>Bigfoot and mokole-mbembe never existed and never will be discoveredThis is precisely what he is saying and precisely what he is complaining about. I don't think English is your first language.
>>5066530>Which is even more dubious because different species used to mean you couldn't interbreedAnd we pretty quickly figured out that was a terrible definition because of the discovery of ring species and a little thing called evolutionary biology
>>5066565>Do you even know what a ring species is?Do you? I’m not sure how you can say that and imply that ring species have nothing to do with reproductive compatibility being largely discarded as a measure of species. Do a little research before talking about these things
>>5066550this has got to be trolling
>>5066273>professional scientists whose only job it is to find new animals took 4.3 billion years to find this species>people still doubt sasquatch is out there waiting to be found
>>5066530You’re a demented retard.
Solid 8/10.
>>5066317>"That isn't real">"Never existed">He doesn't know
>>5066598>Ok, so you have no explanation as to how "ring species" and "evolutionary biology" magically invalidates the original meaning of speciesI don’t think you know what a ring species is so I’ll make it simple for you>population A can breed with population B, same species>population B can breed with population C, same species>population C can breed with population D, same species>population D cannot breed with population A, so how are they all the same species?The classic example of this is species surrounding a mountain range where each overlaps two species on either side of its distribution. They can each interbreed with the species before them so must be slightly different types of the same species in a continuous population, but by the time you circle around the mountain the differences have stacked up enough to prevent breeding between the first and last populations. Hope this helps
>>5066598you could’ve just read the wikipedia page on ring species btw. Pay more attention in biology class next time, you might actually learn something>Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem for those seeking to divide the living world into discrete species. All that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations; if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species. The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it interbreeds with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that species boundaries arise gradually and often exist on a continuum
>>5066530>>5066598>maintains fertility in your pathspecies conceptfags BTFO once again
>>5066642Pretty sure I used to work with the guy on the right
>>5066757>cricketsYeah that sounds about right
>>5066374There have been almost no truly new large animals discovered in the last century. Nearly all new large animals are just recognised animals that have been split into multiple species
>>5067171Saola (might be extinct already tho lol)? Giant squid?
>>5066313It's an opossum, not a rodent you retard. Lots of small animals are cool if you look into them more. You'd probably think a treeshrew is "just a rodent" as well even though they're close relatives of primates.
>>5066640It was discovered in Peru's cloud forest.Isn't that one of the most studied places in the entire world? If a new critter is popping up there, they could be anywhere.
>>5067293>SaolaThat’s the only one I can think of>Giant squid?We've known about them for ages. They’re not as new or mysterious as people say
>>5066530>Now it can just mean anything you want it to meanTo be fair, I used to think that some of the shit like "THIS GENERIC SILVER MINNOW HAS AN EXTRA ANAL FIN RAY, THIS MEANS IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES FROM THIS OTHER VISUALLY IDENTICAL GENERIC SILVER MINNOW, BTW IT ALSO LIVES IN A SINGLE CREEK SO ITS ENDANGERED" was completely retarded until I heard that researchers do it on purpose to game the system and protect land from development.
>>5067294>taxonomic autismIf it looks like a rat it is a rat
>>5066273What is it? Looks creepy. Little monkey hands.
>>5067497it's a mouse-opossum
>>5066273Probably considering sasquatch are already discovered but not "accepted" whatever that means
>>5066273So what's the lore on this thing? Was it a cryptid at some point, or is it totally new to everyone?
>>5068836if it's been found, it's not a cryptid. Cryptids are just schizo fantasies.
>>5068930>For example, Although lions and tigers can produce offspring when forced together, less than 50% of their progeny will be fertile. So, different species.>However a million years ago they likely had less of a problem with interbreeding, let us Say 60% of their offspring were fertileWhere did you get this idea that any pairing producing offspring with below 50% fertility means they’re different species and above 50% means they’re the same? You just came up with this now. That’s not a thing>So they were straddling the line between being the same and different species>This by definition means that Separate species can share subspecies, and that given enough evolutionary time will diverge to the point where they don't share subspecies anymoreThat isn’t the definition of subspecies though. Two species can’t share a subspecies any more than two genera can share a species. A subspecies is a group within a species that is genetically distinct enough to warrant recognition. What you are describing is not a genetically distinct group but a group experiencing introgression from two separate lineages>Which is to be expected with evolution, otherwise how could separate species ever evolve in the first place?There is no hard cutoff point where one species turns into another. Taxonomy is just how we categorise things for our convenience. You seem to be under the impression that you can draw clear circles around sections of a continuous lineage. You can’t>Here's your ring unraveled>A-B-C-D>So A & D are separate species that share the subspecies B & CThat isn’t what a subspecies is. To call that a subspecies means you are entirely redefining the term to suit your argument. Also B and C aren’t subspecies in that hypothetical>I can't believe this needs to be explainedI can’t believe you wrote all that and still got it so wrongLiterally everything you just said is bullshit you made up. Way to show you really don’t know what a ring species is
>>5068975>you don’t understand. if I redefine all the existing terms to something totally unrelated and make a bunch of assumptions then my theory totally works!
>>5069038>That very much was and still is an accepted conceptIt really isn’t>Goats and sheep can mate and apparently produce fertile offspring less than 0.01% of the time.>Caucasian x Asian interracial pairings have more stillbirths than intra-racial couples. But the surviving offspring are fertileAnd? This just shows that different pairings have varying levels of fertility. That doesn’t support the idea that there’s a 50% fertility cutoff. It’s not accepted because it’s something you made up and decided was true>No, that's the definition if you think evolution doesn't existIt’s the only definition. This new definition is something you and you alone decided on. It’s bullshit. There is no alternative definition, and you can’t cite where you got this from because you came up with it yourself>Ok, so You're a amoeba? And you want to be taken seriously?Amoeba aren’t a taxonomic group. But yes you can’t evolve out of a clade. The fact you don’t even know that much tells me you don’t know shit yet are trying to speak with authority. Go on, try draw a line between birds and reptiles or fish and tetrapods>You can't accuse somebody of "making stuff up" when you're whole idea of taxonomy is "making stuff up". Oh the Irony.There’s a slight difference between a retard who failed highschool biology like you changing all the definitions to create your own little pet theory and modern taxonomy. Also yes taxonomy was made up by a little guy called Linnaeus, but I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of him
>>5069038>>There is no hard cutoff point where one species turns into another>Ok, so You're a amoeba?Are you pretending to be too retarded to understand gradients?
>>5069279>It really is...Find me even one article referencing this mythical 50% fertility threshold>Ok, so you think an archaic human that could reproduce with modern humans but only produce fertile offspring 50% of the time would be the same species? You want to die on that hill?No I’m saying that this made up 50% cutoff wouldn’t be the deciding factor. That has never been a thing. It would be a different species because their lineage diverged from ours to a great enough extent to be recognised, not because of some made up 50% threshold>after claiming that taxonomy is nothing more than pet names that don't reflect objective realityI said that taxonomy is our way of categorising organisms for our own convenience. I’m calling the bullshit you’re spewing a pet theory>As I've already said. The original definition of species coexisted with evolutionary theory because people WERE open to the idea that Species can straddle the line between being separate or singleNo it didn’t you retard. The original concept of a species came BEFORE evolutionary biology was even a field. Linnaeus published Systema Naturae in 1758, Darwin published The Origin Of Species in 1859. They didn’t co exist at all. At least learn that before speaking like you know shit>That isn't some original concept I just made upIt is. If it weren’t you’d be capable of naming whoever came up with it before you>And no, Linnaeus didn't invent giving different names to different speciesHe did. Species and genus names did not exist before Linnaeus created his system for taxonomy. Before that only common names existed. There was no scientific nomenclature to rank species>What next? You're going to tell me that Celsius and Fahrenheit Invent temperature scales, because they didn't. The Rømer scale for example is earlierWhy are you so insistent on making comparisons that don’t work?
>>5069479>Ok, so you think an archaic human that could only produce fertile offspring with modern humans 50% of the same time would be the exact same species as modern humanslol. If the only argument you can make is to deliberately misrepresent what I just said then you’re just illustrating that you don’t know wtf you’re saying. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?>The biological species concept is still used today...>People still believe in evolution todayEvolution is the whole reason the definition of species based on reproductive compatibility doesn’t work>I didn't invent the biological species concept.What you’re describing isn’t biological species concept moron. You just redefined subspecies when you made the lion/tiger example. Did you just forget that lions and tigers both already have subspecies that have nothing to do with hybrids?>Gaspard Bauhin lived before Linnaeus.He was a precursor but he didn’t create a standardised taxonomic system. But even if we include him, he also lived before evolutionary biology was a thing anyways so you’re not exactly helping your case. Try again retard anon>Ok, once again. you're an idiot>Ok, once again. you're an idiot>Ok, once again. you're an idiotAww it’s seething
>>5069388>he still can’t find any articles referencing the 50% threshold or where any that say anything about multiple species sharing subspeciesKek. Stay in school kid>>5069564>It's exactly what you saidIt isn’t. You know this. I know this. But you can’t actually address what I said so this is the best you can do. I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince when it’s written right there>Wow, ok, so why is the biological species concept is still used today?In evolutionary biology? It isn’t. We’ve known for decades that reproductive compatibility is not a hard rule because of things like ring species. Try again>I'm literally describing it moronShow me where biological species concept involves two species sharing a subspecies. Oh wait, you can’t>Oh no! You're wrong!Too bad Bauhin just proves what you said about the original definition species co existing with evolutionary biology even more wrong. We’ll just forget about that though>Aww You're seething you idiot. You're seething!Thanks for proving me right
>>5069577Seethe moar underage newfag
>>5069583Children should not be on the internet if they get this mad
>>5069588Sir this is the animals & nature board. Not a place for you to cry
>>5069596Way to tear down any argument you had in a fit of autistic rage
>>5069598Fascinating
>>5069605Do you still remember what your original argument was or are the tears making it hard?
>>5069610Have you calmed down from your sperg out yet?
>>5069624This is what I’m saying though. What it doesn’t say is two species can share a subspecies or anything about 50% fertility cutoff for speciation
>>5069641>It literally does say that you idiotBut it literally doesn’t. At no point does it litcherallee say that, it doesn’t even say anything approximately close that that. You’re just grabbing quotes that don’t even begin to support your argument and acting like they do>The presence of hybrids in nature between similar species suggests that they may have descended from a single interbreeding species and that speciation, a process where a single species branches to form two or more new species, may not yet be completeThis says that the presence of hybrids that maintain fertility demonstrate how the process of speciation to the point of reproductive isolation is a continuous process with no cutoff point. You just confirmed what I said you dumb fuck
>>5069649>me when I link a random source and invent meaning from words that aren’t thereIntellectual heavyweight right here
>>5069653Do you usually have such spectacular meltdowns?
>>5069655Reading it again doesn’t invent words that aren’t here>>5069657Please keep speeding out
>>5069660Poor retard anon. All you can say is “extrapolate” without even being able to say what part can be extrapolated to support your argument. Grim
>>5069694>it’s the same guy who had a meltdown over manatees intelligence>it’s the same guy who thinks orcas aren’t whales>it’s the same guy who rages about cats all dayThis is the autist who throws tantrums so often here. The insults he uses, way he types, and his quick descent into a fit of rage and shit flinging when he starts losing the argument are all identical. That’s probably not even close to the extent of it
Holy fuck it is kudu anon
>>5069697Are you the alcoholic fag? The one that’s clearly developing symptoms of alcohol psychosis with paranoid and narcissistic delusions?You know /an/ has never been too fond of cats anyways right?>animals and nature board>dislikes an artificial animal that 1: kills animals 2: harms nature 3: has a defense force of spergs that think thats a good thing and responsible pet ownership and realistic attitudes are "cat hate"This has not changed since 2013. The cat person insanity in response has, of course. Its not just one guy on any side. Dont be a fucking retard. The CSAM spammer toxo, was not the other /dog/ raiding toxo, was not you, etc…. There is no anti cat schizo. There is no dogredditor. It is dozens of people. And its 4ch/an/ culture unchanged since 2013. Except the CSAM and /dog/ raids replacing cat predation spam. The r/dogfree pastas are kind of new i guess? Thats another thats not just one guy. Various subreddits and discords raid /an/ all the time. The ask yourself discord was a recent one. Not even all of the /dog/ raids were just salty toxobrains, several were just for the lulz.
>>5069699it is quite possible that its someone with brain damage or on drugs because the fit thats derailed this thread is incoherent from start to presentwhy is he even madi cant fucking tell, it’s like reading an interview with francis dec conducted by terry davis
>>5069699Nobody cares about your console war bullshit>>5069702Samefag
>>5069704Is that a yes alcoholic brain damage or no alcoholic brain damage?
>>5069706I don’t think you’re in any position to talk about brain damage after this thread.TLDR two species can’t share a subspecies. There is no 50% fertility cutoff to differentiate species. Reproductive compatibility is a poor way to define species. Ring species disprove that definition. Orcas are whales. Manatees are intelligent. You are a retarded fag
>>5069698If nothing else his meltdowns do make for good entertainment
>>5069713Sorry. Poor insults won’t fix your retardation. Maybe try not to start a discussion that will make you look like a moron next time
>>5069715>>5069717>tranny anon>jeet-like insults>anon is so stupid/disabled/autistic he thinks xyzIt really is him
>>5069710You have mistaken me for someone elseAre you drunk?
>>5069748Alcoholic bro…The mod isn’t arguing with you. The mod is a chrigger and he owns both dogs and cats.
>>5069748>Lol, I wasn't banned for half a year until I argued with you and then I was magically banned temporarily for 11 minutes just nowYou’re welcome to believe that I’m a mod out to get you, it won’t make you right. If I was a mod I would ban you for this spam anyways
>>5071215lol
>>5071466>he thinks a single mention is the same as two in one replyAnon is mentally deficient
>>5071476You’re welcome to believe that
>>5071466lol
>>5069698He’s still salty that kudus have smaller brains and fewer neurons than manatees
>>5071632lol
>>5071829>calling out his mistakes and lies!Ironic
>>5071830lol
Damn they're really running out of ideas
they're still releasing new ones?
