>>16270496
Or it's stuck in a rut where no mutations of its current form are helpful even if there are hypothetical forms that perform the same lifestyle more effectively.
Evolution happens in tiny steps, a creature can find itself in a spot where none of those tiny steps are more helpful.

How do you know it’s internal biochemistry stayed the same?

>BUT IT’S ROUGHLY LE SAME SHAPE SO IT STAYED THE SAME
Brainlet take

>>16270496
You have no clue of how it looked, you just found a stone who looked like it, maybe it was multicolored at some point

>>16270503
how do you know they aren't?

>>16270496
evolution by random mutation is fake and gay. 100% mutation would either kill the individual or just create noise without any meaningful contribution to fitness.

>>16270522
What the fuck does ”100% mutation”, retard?

>>16270524
>pinching words
kill yourself retarded dumbfuck

>>16270506
I have one from 500 000 000 years ago breathing zinc in my drawer

>>16270496
>chlorophyll remains unchanged after 2,000,000,000 years of random mutations and natural selection
I wonder WHY, maybe "natural selection" will reinforce (push the genome) into stable niches as long as the environment isn't too different...

>>16270522
They've been directly observed
https://youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8&pp=ygUSSGFydmFyZCBldm9sdXRpb24g
Here is a completely new gene evolving via random mutation which codes for a completely new protein which gives a completely new function which is beneficial for fitness. Evolution has been directly observed.

>>16270531
*laughs in horseshoe crab*

>>16270531
Beautiful experiment.

>>16270531
Very nice, simple experiment, but with disturbing implications: Less than two weeks to 1000x antibiotic concentration resistance, fucking hell.

cyanobacteria are even 4 billion years old

>>16270538
>2 more weeks

>>16270496
>is this the ultimate life form?
For its niche, it is the optimal morphology, yes

Fuck Spiders

>>16270522
>100% mutation
Most mutations are not the entire genome
>would either kill the individual
That is correct, many mutations might kill the animal
>or just create noise without any meaningful contribution to fitness
That is also correct.
So, the mutations which do contribute to evolution are not those.

>>16270501
local minima
it's why catastrophic events are needed to shake things up now and then

>>16270496
peak evolution

>>16270496
God just thinks hes neat.

>>16270538
Keep in mind it was forced to evolve due to lack of space and resources. Naturally occurring bacteria are much less likely to aggressively shift this way.

>>16270527
Kkek

>>16270531
Is that really impressive?
Isn't that bacteria already coded with the necessity to survive antibiotics?
Is not making anything new, really
It's like a caterpillar mutating specifically to overcome the acidity of the plants it eats, then plans try and produce more shit to back them off and so on
I get it that its "a mutation", but you can hardly say it's a "random mutation"

>>16271613
Please respond to the development of nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon literally didn't exist before the 1930s and there was no "coding" to produce the enzyme which breaks it down already extant.

>>16271615
I know the term "nylon-eating" is more impactful, but aren't those bacterias basically just eating the amines innit

>>16271615
how do random mutations figure out how to break down nylon? seems like an intelligent move

all these bacteria experiments are trash lol. can’t believe people are falling it for this meme. this is just adaption and bacteria will forever remain bacteria, it gained absolutely nothing new lmao.

>>16271613
>Isn't that bacteria already coded with the necessity to survive antibiotics?
No
>Is not making anything new
Yes it is
>>16271615
Very good point
>>16271658
You're extremely unintelligent

>>16271666
you didn't post anything intelligent satan

>>16270531
>Here is a completely new gene evolving via random mutation which codes for a completely new protein which gives a completely new function which is beneficial for fitness. Evolution has been directly observed.
and the environment didn't change one bit so the mutation was not driven by natural selection

>>16271641
it’s still *gasp* bacteria. wake me up when it grows wings

>>16271669
>you didn't post anything intelligent
Yes, I did.
Small changes over time are big changes. You being unable to understand this makes you low IQ
>satan
Doesn't exist but 666 being my post number is pretty funny

>>16271672
>and the environment didn't change one bit so the mutation was not driven by natural selection
That's not how it works. The bacteria adapted to several new environments by deriving novel genetic information which came via random mutation. Thus we have directly observed new biological information being created randomly and it improving fitness. We've directly observed natural selection.
The environment can change or remain similar over time. That's irrelevant

>>16271677
>Yes, I did.
no you didn't you're being delusional again
parroting text books isn't high intelligence either

>>16271682
Yes I did
You denying direct observation is you being delusional
You've also never read a textbook in your life, high school or otherwise

>>16271666
>>16270531
>here's a "random" mutation that somehow all branches of the bacteria from BOTH sides, developed over time
That's the most clear cut example of a targeted adaptation and I don't know why all you modwits insert the term "random" there

>>16271681
Another one
>>16271688

>>16271688
because mutations are random
how does bacteria without intelligence adapt to something in a targeted manner

>>16271688
Because it developed via random mutation on the genome. An entirely new sequence of DNA randomly mutated which coded for a new protein. That derived new biological information which gave it a new phenotype and a new ability to survive in a new environment and improved fitness, which then proliferated.
This is a direct observation of random mutation and selection i.e. evolution.

>>16271703
the selection is not natural

all there is a random mutation and that's it

>>16271703
>>16271702
If you can't explain it it's fine
I can't explain it.
But if 20 strands of bacteria adapt to the same thing more or less at the same time, it's absolutely is not "random"
You WANT it to be random because it fits your larger narrative, but it's clearly not random

>>16271677
> Small changes over time are big changes. You being unable to understand this makes you low IQ

it’s not over time you doofus, it’s over generations. that’s precisely why this failed experiment uses bacteria, as it replicates fast. regardless of numbers of generations passed, it still remains bacteria at the end of the day. there is no known mechanism that will allow bacteria to grow legs and walk out of the lab you cretin

>>16271705
What?
>>16271712
They didn't develop at the same time and the mutations weren't the same
>>16271714
The mechanism which allows the bacteria to develop a new enzyme to eat nylon is the same that develops limbs or other phenotypic traits. It's called mutation and selection.
Yes, it takes a long time. No, that doesn't mean it isn't real

>>16271721
> The mechanism which allows the bacteria to develop a new enzyme to eat nylon is the same that develops limbs or other phenotypic traits. It's called mutation and selection.
Yes, it takes a long time. No, that doesn't mean it isn't real

prove it then. demonstrate how the mechanism that explains microevolution also explains macroevolution eg. how a single cell turned into a thinking living human being in all its complexity

>>16271721
>They didn't develop at the same time
Are you fucking blind? Rewatch the video or I'll fucking point it out to you with crayons

File: pb.png (350 KB, 680x622)

350 KB PNG

>>16270522
Genetic algorithms say you are a fucking idiot.

>>16270496
living fossils never fail to make darwanists seethe

>>16272324
they've found a niche man they don't have to evolve anymore!

>>16272177
>Genetic algorithms
retard you don't know what you're talking about. probably never touched a single genetic algorithm nor ever read a paper on genetic algorithm.
you don't even have a model of how to relate evolution by random mutation and natural selection to genetic algorithm properly.
go back to do your homework, retard.

I suggest fucking dogbrain stupid fucks who mentioned genetic algorithms to read Kenneth Stanley bodies of work before talking dumbdumb.

or you fucktards at least try to a optimize quadratic or semidefinite program first then move on to try optimizing a non-convex objective before talking bullshit.

what's the probability of the same random mutation occurring in multiple specimen of a species

>>16272593
There is some examples in species with large amount of family, like arachnids and cartilagenous fishes.

Check trichromacy vision in spider : An dozen of spiders developped trichromacy without behing directly related and with different genetic solutions.

There are no fossils of horseshoe crabs dating back 50000000 years you retards
There are things similar to horseshoe crabs of course. But not horseshoe crabs

>>16272065
>prove it then. demonstrate how the mechanism that explains microevolution also explains macroevolution
I just did. Your problem is you're a retard and you think that some mutations are "not allowed" for no reason other than that you're a coping creationist retard
Mutations on DNA make a new string of nucleotides. This new string is new biological information. It codes for a new mRNA which translates into a new protein. This new protein interacts with the organisms other proteins and cells and such in a new way which leads to new phenotype and behavior. This phenotype and behavior then undergoes selection in its environment which either increases, decreases, or doesn't change it fitness (the amount of offspring and copies it makes in the genepool).
Over time different mutations and different selection pressures lead to entirely different forms and organisms. Including multicellular life, animals and plants, and all the species we see including humans
There is NOTHING "special" about one mutation vs another in terms of this underlying mechanism. You going "they can develop nylon eating abilities b-but not legs or hands!" is just you coping with the put right in front of you. The development of eating nylon vs growing legs or wings or big brains is the same thing: mutations on strings of nucleotides making new proteins and phenotypes.

>>16272324
>>16272561
Why do you samefagging all over /sci/ and /his/?

>>16270522
>>16270526
>>16272177
>>16272563
You 4tards have communication issues.

>>16272951
erm...

>>16270496
retard again.
I have no any motivation to explain to this kind of retards how horseshoe crabs are doomed as species.
I'm already tired to tell the same thing over and over and over.
ultimate life form? haha just believe so and stay being happy.

>>16270496
Living proof Darwin was full of shit

File: Screenshot 2024-07-09 at (...).png (13 KB, 556x147)

13 KB PNG

>>16273329

File: horseshoe-crab-brain-two-(...).jpg (123 KB, 753x490)

123 KB JPG

>>16272938
1st result in google...

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2021/august/310-million-year-old-fossil-horseshoe-crab-brain.html

File: 56312631.jpg (224 KB, 1204x677)

224 KB JPG

>>16270496
>ultimate life f-ack
haha

>>16272561
That is correct. There are many such examples, horseshoe crabs are just the most famous.

>>16273340
>Living proof Darwin was full of shit
Explain.

>>16271675
Good thing you'll be absent from society in the meantime we might get something done with one less retard fucking shit up

>>16270538
>>16271328
The antibiotic resistance likely also makes it a lot less competitive in any environment that doesn't have ludicrous concentrations of that specific antibiotic.

File: IMG_4351.jpg (253 KB, 731x803)

253 KB JPG

>>16272566

>>16273776
so it is peak evolution lol
why evolve to begin with?

File: Capture.jpg (63 KB, 566x779)

63 KB JPG

>>16273863
>so it is peak evolution lol
yes, morphologically, it is for its niche.
Nonetheless, not only are we not talking about a single species, but many, in 500Ma you can safely bet that these animals have evolved much in terms of biochemistry. The extant horseshoe crabs are not the same animals of 500Ma ago, their fossils just look the same.

>>16273863
>why evolve to begin with?
because that's just how the laws of physics operate and manifest themselves. Why rain in the first place? Why is there sunshine in the first place? Why are there landslides in the first place? Why this, why that, etc. It's all the same thing: physics. Beyond that, you'll be going into philosophy discussions, and that will be off-topic in /sci/

>>16273913
>you can safely bet
a yes, very /sci/

>>16273918
physics is law and order, apparently order comes out of chaos like life out of inanimate matter

>>16270496
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12220
>Here, I present a phylogenetic analysis of Xiphosurida and explore patterns of morphospace and environmental occupation of the group throughout the Phanerozoic. Xiphosurids are shown to have invaded non-marine environments independently at least five times throughout their evolutionary history, twice resulting in the radiation of major clades – bellinurines and austrolimulids – that occupied novel regions of morphospace. These clades show a convergent ecological pattern of differentiation, speciation and subsequent extinction. Horseshoe crabs are shown to have a more dynamic and complex evolutionary history than previously supposed, with the extant species representing only a fraction of the group's past ecological and morphological diversity.

>>16273926
>physics is law and order, apparently order comes out of chaos like life out of inanimate matter
That's quite off-topic already for a discussion about horseshoe crab species and evolution.
It is what it is.

>>16273797
He can't. He just wants to nitpick and argue until you accept his jewish god is real.

>>16270496
poked one of these at the aquarium last week

>>16270496
> it is the ultimate lifeform for “bottom dwelling nocturnal insectivore”
> full body armour, perfect legs for traversing any underwater soil/rock, compound eyes that can see visible and UV light, a bunch of eyes at the top, mouth, and between compound eyes for fun, ability to regenerate limbs and other parts
> why bother changing when perfection has been attained

>>16274994
perfection was achieved when the first living organisms could thrive in any environment and replicate at will making them virtually immortal

>>16270501
How heavy are those goal posts

>>16272561
prove that this is whats happening.

>>16275408
>prove that this is whats happening
whatisecology.jpg
nah, you go learn instead. We're not your teachers.

>>16275408
it's nonesense darwinian cope
they would've had a niche already long before they became crabs

File: 1720468206048506.jpg (62 KB, 750x668)

62 KB JPG

check mate atheists

>>16273776
every species has their own niche today and they had it 100 million years go

Species form a symbiotic relationship, not a competition

Fags

Humans invest their hard earned money to make vacations in what they perceive as beautiful places instead of investing it in their survival

>>16270496
Charles Lyell was entirely wrong, he just fibbed numbers for layers he thought were gorillionz of years apart, but there's not even a few thousand years of erosion or channeling. Radio dating methods also prove it's not that old, otherwise we wouldn't have any C14 in diamonds. It's ironic that being willingly ignorant and denying the global flood gives them an even harder time of having their mythological fake "science" view of history.

File: doges.jpg (202 KB, 1438x934)

202 KB JPG

>finds random skulls
>concludes they are different species
>see evolution!
>is all dogs

psilocybin is a complex molecule that doesn't benefit the mushroom but has a profound effect on humans

>>16276397
>denying the global flood
>>>/x/

>>16273863
it's not. It is the morphology with the most fitness for presumably a very specific ecosystem. As other have pointed out, you are excluding changes in metabolism and I would also add changes in behaviour.

>>16277054
Speciation happens when two of the same species are totally separate for extended periods of time.
If we left chihuahuas alone, and never artificially fertilized them with other dogs, they'd more than likely speciate to the point that they'd no longer be inter-fertile with something like a great dane or wolf. .

Why are young earth creationists all over /sci/ and other boards lately?

>>16277474
Disproving Darwinism doesn’t necessarily mean young earth

>>16277505
Yes, it does, and no one here has "disproved darwinism" or evolution as it has been directly observed. There's not a single post in this thread that "disproves evolution". There are many posts which directly prove evolution, including a video directly showing evolution.
You kvetching about this is just you denying direct observations because they disprove your religious creationist beliefs.
Evolution is true, humans are apes and descend from a common ancestor with chimpanzees dating back about 5 million years ago. Not a single one of these claims that I just made have been refuted; they've all been proven by genetics, ERVs, and the fossil record

>>16277518
No it doesn’t and humans are quite different from apes

>>16277526
Yes, it does.
Humans literally are apes, just like we are mammals, and we are vertebrates, and we are animals, and we are eukaryotes
You have no problem with the statement "humans are mammals" or "humans are vertebrates" but the statement "humans are primates" makes you angry for some reason. You creationists are all the same.

>>16277530
How does disproving Darwinism mean young earth?
You see similarities between primate and human and conclude they are the same but you disregard the differences that quite literally make the difference

>>16277518
The onus is on you to prove your so called "direct" observation. A conclusion reached without evidence can be dismissed without it. Your evolution of the gaps is not science.

>>16277539
The similarities are because we descend from a common ancestor and we literally ate primates.
We do ignore differences, the differences are what categorize us as different species in the class.
Humans objectively are primates just like we objectively are mammals.
>>16277541
Mutations on nucleotide sequences are directly observed. You denying this is not an argument. "Evolution of the gaps" is not a real thing
We directly observe generation of new biological information and we directly observe speciation. You going "KINDS KINDS" isn't an argument because "kinds" are not a real thing. Genetics are real, ERVs are real
You denying this does not mean we haven't proved it. It just means you're going "nuh uh nuh uh" because you're a creationist religious retard

>>16277548
We literally are primates*

>>16277548
What other mammal has human traits?

>>16277550
What primate has human traits?

>>16277551
>What other mammal has human traits?
The primates
>>16277552
>What primate has human traits?
All of them

>>16277555
Alright you’re a troll

>>16277563
No, I'm not
Humans and primates share almost all anatomical features and are extremely genetically similar
There's a greater genetic difference between Indian elephants and African elephants than there is between humans and chimpanzees
You denying this is just you denying reality because you're a coping religious creationist

>>16271613
God you are dumb

>>16277552
Define human traits

>>16278121
traits that are exclusive to humans which separate them from the animal kingdom

>>16278421
Such as?

>>16277526
>>16277551
>>16277552
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/humans-are-primates/
>>16278421
Humans are animals we aren't separated from the animal kingdom any more than we're separate from mammals or vertebrates or eukaryotes or primates.
I don't get why this is confusing

>>16278649
religion, mythology, art, clothing/accessories

even most primitive tribes have a desire to explain the world around them, have a mythology and understand that there is an unseen or spiritual world

ironically atheists are taking this away from humans making them more akin to animals in that regard

creating art
decorating their homes and bodies with accessories they perceive as appealing
having a sense of beauty and harmony

the necessity to work out in order to gain or maintain strength
raising a human and a gorilla in a sedentary lifestyle, the human would grow weak and frail while the gorilla would still develop more muscle mass than any athletic human

etc.

>>16279938
control of fire
ability to project mind into the material world

>>16277567
if i showed you pictures of the eyes of an african elephant and an indian elephant you wouldn't be able to tell them apart
but you would immediately be able to distinguish between human and chimpanzee eyes

>>16278649
imagination

>>16279958
>if i showed you pictures of the eyes of an african elephant and an indian elephant you wouldn't be able to tell them apart
So? If you showed me the eyes of a lion and a house cat they would be immediately distinguishable, as would the eyes of a dog and a fox, a spiny tailed gecko and a golden tailed gecko, a frog and a toad, a viper and a mamba, etc, etc. That is possibly the worst reasoning I have ever heard for anything ever, you can have two species that are closely related have similar looking eyes or entirely different looking eyes.

File: 1647198588112 (1).gif (2.38 MB, 498x278)

2.38 MB GIF

>>16270496
WOW. Evolution monkeys really have some powerful theories...

>>16277419
That's interesting. Can you provide a single example of this actually happening.

>>16279938
>>16279941
None of those things means humans aren't apes any more than they mean humans aren't mammals or vertebrates or animals. The reason we are apes is the same as the reason we are mammals or vertebrates; because we fit the definition of these groups.
Being able to use reason and make music does not mean we aren't primates, just like it doesn't mean we don't have spinal cords.

>>16280180
Ring species

>>16280250
Fish are vertebrates. Saying humans are apes is like saying primates are fish.

>>16280180
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news/speciation-in-real-time/
I think you'll find the Galapagos finches more compelling, as they will no longer interbreed with any other finches, a distinct species.

>>16280625
>popsci

>>16280671
It's not like you'd read the actual literature, and Berkeley is a good university that explains evolution at a beginner level well.
So, how do you respond to the speciation of finches?

>>16280682
Adaption is not Evolution

>>16280816
First of all it’s adaptation, second of all in the case of speciation in Galapagos finches yes it is evolution. Adaptation and evolution are not mutually exclusive terms

>>16270496
>>remains unchanged after 500 000 000 years
The thing is people never question their timeline despite being impossible scientifically. If you question their religion they falsely call science, they get really upset.

>>16277072
There's more evidence for a global flood than for this evolutionism theory tale. There is also historical support for it from the ancient culture histories.

Your beliefs die without censorship.

>>16280816
It's speciation. If you can get a new species from a different older species, how is that not literally confirmation of darwin?

>>16280872
They don’t like the fact that Darwin’s theory has since been confirmed through direct observation which is why they try to imply that evolution refers only to huge changes like a fish to a horse. Only problem is they’re forgetting Darwin’s original writings on evolution were based on things like different beak shapes in Galapagos finches, but apparently that’s microevolution and doesn’t count as real evolution

>>16280365
Cladistically they are fish. That’s not the gotcha you thought it was

>>16280952
Agreed. As much as I hate Dawkins’ usual drama, the Ancestor’s Tale beautifully explains how the “species” of an organism is a dynamic concept, how gradual changes lead to new species and genera, and how there’s no concrete gap: at every point in the genealogical line connecting, say, modern humans and homo erectus, any hominid you pick will be extremely similar phenotypically and genetically to its son, grandson, parents and grandparents. But do the same for many, many generations and you see diverging species. This is “microevolution”, there are no jumps, we didn’t suddenly lose most of our great ape body hair in 5 generations.

>>16280625
Galapagos finches are all capable of interbreeding, they all have the same number of chromosomes.

>>16280682
>Berkeley is a good university
no it isn't

>>16280992
But they don't interbreed. They only sexually select members of their own species.

>>16280992
>Galapagos finches are all capable of interbreeding
To say this you would need to have recorded interbreeding of each species with every other species which obviously hasn’t been recorded. The largest Galapagos finch is five times the size of the smallest, even if they were genetically compatible they likely couldn’t interbreed
>they all have the same number of chromosomes
Most songbirds have the same number of chromosomes but you still can’t breed a finch with a raven

>>16270496
>>16270501
>Is it the ultimate lifeform
>Is it stuck in a rut
It just is.
Some things change and some things don't.

>>16280816
>Adaption is not Evolution
Yes, it is.
And accumulated adaptations and mutations over time lead to completely different forms

>>16280866
>There's more evidence for a global flood than for this evolutionism theory tale.
No,there isn't
>There is also historical support for it from the ancient culture histories.
The majority of ancient cultural religions and such do not have a flood myth

>>16280839
It's because it isn't "impossible scientifically", and you retards don't actually challenge the data or observations you just deny evidence and make shit up and pretend that it's an argument. See this thread for example

>>16280952
>They don’t like the fact that Darwin’s theory has since been confirmed through direct observation which is why they try to imply that evolution refers only to huge changes like a fish to a horse.
Exactly. And then when you show direct evidence of transitions and such, they just deny it anyway and pretend it isn't real. They have to literally claim that radiometric dating isn't real to pretend that the earth isn't billions of years old.
Evolution has been directly observed and is proven.

>>16280992
University of Califorkia at Berkeley is an extremely good school and you'd never be able to get into it

File: crabBot.gif (3.1 MB, 1646x360)

3.1 MB GIF

>>16270496
>is this the ultimate life form?
Almost. AI will take over. Crab is best physical form. Crab bots will take over the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IP7jptXjgQ

File: map-usa-average-iq-us-sta(...).jpg (86 KB, 1024x703)

86 KB JPG

>>16281371
Its a garbage dump. Its a state school in the lowest IQ state in the nation and it is currently coasting on a reputation that was built in the 20th century, long before California became a 3rd world state. Lawrence, Seaborg and Mullis are long gone and there isn't anyone there currently capable of stepping up to replace them. Everyone intelligent has long since left California.

>>16280955
>Cladistically they are fish
it would still be a misleading description

>>16281670
Not really. Calling humans apes is a generalisation from genus to family, primates being fish is from order to superclass. Those two things are not comparable. Calling a human an ape is equivalent to calling a chimp an ape or calling a lion a cat

>>16281371
You have to be vaxxed to attend

>>16281591
>Its a state school in the lowest IQ state
The university isn't the California state, dumbass. It's full of incredible minds from all over the globe.
What a sore loser you are. Neck yourself already.

>>16277054
How many non domesticated animals have that much variation within a species?

>>16270496
natural selection doesn't do perfect it does good enough. That's the horseshoe crab, good enough to eat rotting shit off the seafloor for half a billion years

>>16270522
Do you think if I randomly alter a part of a picture it's automatically entirely ruined?
Even if the altered 3 pixels just so happen to cover a skin blemish with clear skin?

>>16270528
Local Maximum reached

>>16281996
apes

>>16270522
>meaningful contribution to fitness
It's not all about increased fitness also external factors induce genetic changes, it's not just random

>>16274323
he is

>>16270496
The ultimate for their niche.

>>16282278
“Ape” isn’t a species, it’s a superfamily with lots of species none of which vary that much in skull shape

>>16279938
>>16279941
All of these existed in non human hominids. They were making symbolic art, jewellery, etc.
>raising a human and a gorilla in a sedentary lifestyle, the human would grow weak and frail while the gorilla would still develop more muscle mass than any athletic human
It’d be stronger than a human but weaker than a wild gorilla. Humans living hunter gatherer lifestyles don’t actively look to work out. Not sure how that is relevant
>>16280015
This even exists in non primate animals like whales and elephants

I hate these things. they creep me out and disgust me so much

>>16282877
they differ wildly in cranial volume even within what scientists claim is a single species

>>16284326
>they differ wildly in cranial volume
even if that were true, having different cranial volumes is not even remotely comparable to the difference in skull shape between a bulldog and a greyhound. Brachycephaly and neoteny are on an entirely different level
>within what scientists claim is a single species
And which species is that?