>>16862228
I am by no means an expert, however there exist differing methods of classification, those being based on appearance and based on genome analysis allowing us to construct a hypothetical phylogenetic tree of life.
As much as Homo likes to classify, life is fluid and mutations happen all the time, therefore I think it's safe to assume that every human progeny could be considered it's own subspecies.
It's crucial to approach this topic with an open mind as this entire system is man-made. Most people however do not host an open mind, and herein you refer to them as "libcucks". I personally do not disagree with the mentioned definition. However, I prefer alternative definitions myself. I fear that no single definition of species will ever be erected, especially to Homo, since in it's nature it's a method of segregation, which is undesirable in ethical sense. Such segregation, however, ought to be commonly available as information since, although difficult to accept, humans are also prone to segregation, just as any other organism.

Species is kinda arbitrary with fuzzy lines at the borders. The existence if ring species should be sufficient for a layman to understand how resistant nature is to fitting neatly into the imaginary boxes humans invent.
But here's the thing: biologists fucking know that. High school kids are taught exceptions to the "no viable offspring" rule. You're not raising any quandary that hasn't already been pondered by everyone who's remotely curious about the subject.
Species is roughly defined in whatever way happens to be most useful for the populations being studied, with actial observed frequency of hybridization being a key concern.

>>16862228
for millions of years the earth only had super nigs for their upright man

no wonder animals run from us these days

>>16862228
Pretty sure you opinions are the least important.

>>16862718
holy esl

>>16862308
Populations of what?

>>16862752
Any living thing.

>>16862755
>Species is roughly defined in whatever way happens to be most useful for the populations of living things being studied, with actial observed frequency of hybridization being a key concern.
The only thing thing using species definitions are humans.
Hybridization is linked to species and is also an arbitrary term.

>>16862765
I think my statement might have been ambiguous.
I'm saying that whether a given population is worth us classifying it as a separate species depends largely on the utility of us doing so.
Nearly all species of bear are capable of hybridization with viable offspring, for example. But these populations are sufficiently distinct from one another and geographically separated that classifying them as different species is more useful to us than putting them in one giant species and then splitting hairs with "subspecies" faggotry.

>Hybridization is linked to species and is also an arbitrary term.
Hybridization is a term used within species as well. Not that it matters anyway. My point was that the lack of interbreeding *in practice* is generally more important than a lack of *ability* to breed when it comes to defining species.

>>16862788
Worthiness depends on utility. So definitions are tailor made for whatever provides value for the writer. Are false definitions okay so long as it is useful for the writer in securing funding?
I am having a hard time even pretending to walk down this road. You are starting by gutting the entire categorization of species so now the only thing being studied are either biological / non-biological phenomenon. This is an unequivocal reversion of the study of lifeforms. It is literally square one.
Do you even realize how jewish this is? You need to invent a context space where you map all previous understandings into a convoluted web of bureaucratic approved phraseology. Meanwhile, you can't tell me giraffes or humans are an actual thing.
>we are all stardust
So the sun is now my grandpa because some structure exists?
You need to wake up.

>>16862228
After the invention of language our ancestors had ways to adapt our behavior to local conditions without speciation as a barrier. Culture, through racism, allows restriction of gene flow based on superficial traits (as opposed to mating behaviors) that are discovered by local cultural adaptions rather than dead babies. Lactose tolerance didn't come about because babies died, it came about because farty-mc-fartface was a fucking loser and milk drinking chads fucked his wife. Filtering happens largely through cuckoldry.
Combine this with war and rape, this prevents us splitting into separate species - which is good for the species as a whole. Fresh blood adaptations can still flow inwards, it's filtered by cultural racism and forced in through conquest.
This is the nature of humanity that nobody wants to admit.

>>16862809
Bro it's not that complicated.
All life exists on a spectrum. It's all interrelated if you go back far enough. But most of those relationships are sufficiently far back that it would be dumb to lump them in the same box.
All life on earth being essentially nth cousins of one another is going to lead to some ambiguity in what goes in which box. But we can glean some utility by asking questions about reproductive past and prospective reproduction in the future.

If some group of orange frogs exists on some isolated island somewhere and they only breed with each other in the wild, then it doesn't really matter if they're capable of breeding with some green frogs on the mainland. That cross-breeding will pretty much never happen and these two groups will continue to drift further apart into the indefinite future. Classifying them as distinct species is a lot more useful than being a faggot about definitional absolutism.

>>16862831
No, speciation happens as a protection from genetic pollution. If you're a white rabbit in the hills and you breed with sexy brown rabbits in the grasslands then hawks will eat your babies. So animals have a built in mechanism to preserve local adaptions, where mating behaviors change over generations to make them biologically incompatible. This process is called speciation, and it's saves some of the toll in dead babies and promotes local adaptation. This tendency leads to crazy runaway sexual-selection processes like birdsong, peacock's tails, antlers and the human brain. It also leads to dodos and extinction events as they go through geographical genetic bottlenecks.
In humans we discovered language and used it to erect this barrier. This adapts much faster and doesn't require dead babies, it made us spread around the world much quicker and adapt similar to insects did but with a much longer lifespan. This mechanism is tribalism and racism, which leads to races. But because we have sexual compatibility it allows gene flow through conquest, so we have genetic adaption to disease and changes and very fast changes to local conditions, you can train brains/culture in one or two generations rather than 50 generations of deaths. So we get the best of both worlds here, broad gene flow meaning it's hard to wipe out all humans, and local adaptations protected by tribalism and racism.

>>16862853
Point being we have half a billion years or sexual selection adaption where inbreeding leads to sexual behavioral changes as a barrier to genetic pollution that wipes out local adaptations. That natural divergence creates races, but language is what causes culture, which is what leads to races rather than speciation.
Culture causes differences in races, but genes that can both spread across racial boundaries and are beneficial are a diversity hedge against species population bottlenecks. So race mixing is how diversity spreads slowly through the population but destroys local/*culturally* bolstered biological advantages.
So races end up with their own cultural selection landscape and outsiders don't fare so well. The ones who do are a useful addition of diversity, but the vast majority are genetic pollution that harms the local adaptations to the co-evolved cultural landscape.

>>16862853
>speciation happens as a protection from genetic pollution.
This is just wrong. There's no "built in" mechanism that causes sexual incompatibility. Now, poor viability among certain kinds of hybrids is certainly a contributing factor. But by far the most important causative mechanism is genetic drift.

If you wanna see an example of this starting to happen in humans, look into the breeding difficulties we have when one parent has an rh+ blood type and the other is rh-. Small issues like that naturally arise, not out of any need or adaptational advantage, but because one group was isolated from the other long enough for nobody to have noticed these changes for thousands of years.

>>16862868
You should do some research into ring species which are some of the most interesting cases of this. But it goes back earlier than multicellular organisms, read a microbiology textbook maybe and don't focus on the budding of our species with a fresh layer of memetic selection and is a very special case, look back at adaptations that led to sexual selection and the first multicellular organisms. It's an eye opener.

>>16862868
>because one group was isolated from the other long enough for nobody to have noticed these changes for thousands of years
many species do gene flow across vastly different organisms, many of which are still around today if you go back as far as mycelium.
Isolation by speciation is an animal default that led to niche adaptation, this is an invention that sits atop of the complexity of gene flow in all animals. Without it you'd have gene flow after hundreds of thousands of generations, which we don't see in animals at our scale

>>16862228
P. robustus and Paranthropus aethiopicus chads absolutely mog all their hominincel descendants

>>16862903
>You should do some research into ring species which are some of the most interesting cases of this.
Funny you mention that. I used them as my exhibit A in my first post ITT:
>>16862308
>The existence if ring species should be sufficient for a layman to understand how resistant nature is to fitting neatly into the imaginary boxes humans invent.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with the rest of this post but yeah. Biology be weird and shit.

>>16862906
>many species do gene flow across vastly different organisms
Horizontal gene transfer is a thing. Yes. This doesn't occur through sexual reproduction, however. Monarch butterflies are famous for incorporating plant genes into thier own DNA.

>Isolation by speciation is an animal default that led to niche adaptation, this is an invention that sits atop of the complexity of gene flow in all animals
Could you elaborate on what you're even teying to say here? Speciation has nothing to do with the animal kingdom on particular. Animals are no "better" at it than plants or fungi are.
Speciation happens through isolation. Not the other way around.

>>16863040
>Animals are no "better" at it than plants or fungi are.
Thats just not true. Animals can choose to speciate and do. Animals can tribalize and
shun outsiders. Animals can abandon babies that look too different. Animals can cause self isolation through migration.
Plants don't have these options and it shows in their crosspollination and grafting abilities. Plants aren't even their own main vectors for reproduction.

I think what he's trying to say is that 1 group splitting into multiple groups in a single area, and then differentiating into all the available ecological niches/specializations is more speciation then a bird getting stuck on an island and changing the shape of its beak.

>>16863389
>Animals can choose to speciate and do.
I take issue with the wording here but that gets into pedantry. As long as we agree to interpret this as "they can make choices that cause speciation" rather than literally "choosing to speciate" I'll concede that I overstepped a bit.

>I think what he's trying to say is that 1 group splitting into multiple groups in a single area, and then differentiating into all the available ecological niches/specializations is more speciation then a bird getting stuck on an island and changing the shape of its beak.
What he said was this:
>>16862853
>animals have a built in mechanism to preserve local adaptions, where mating behaviors change over generations to make them biologically incompatible. This process is called speciation, and it's saves some of the toll in dead babies and promotes local adaptation
This is patently false on multiple levels to the degree that it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution as a whole.

>>16863040
My point was that divergence in mating strategies is the primary barrier to genetic pollution, without ones like it any evolved ecological niches get watered down once isolation ends.

Yes it depends on isolation, but mechanisms that accelerate speciation during isolation promote speciation, because all other things being equal the adaptations are less likely to get wiped out afterwards.

So rapid mutation under in-breeding is as much a feature as it is a bug, as much of the genome is to do with sexual selection. A population bottleneck filters for some niche, in-breeding causes mating strategy divergence, and this kickstarts the runaway processes that lead to things like peacock tails, giraffe necks and human brains.

Like with all things in biology you'll find a million rule-proving exceptions, but this is still the general case.

>>16863499
>accelerate speciation
I mean accelerate mating strategy divergence

>>16862228
>That being anything capable of producing viable offspring with another human.
is that really the definition? don't annoying what-about types complain that infertile people aren't human under this definition?

>>16863489
>they can make choices that cause speciation" rather than literally "choosing to speciate"
>This is patently false on multiple levels to the degree that it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution as a whole.
I would disagree completely. What I think he's refering to is the birds of paradise effect. Mating behaviors, nonsexual attractiveness markers etc influencing group formation outside of evolutionary fitness in order to cause speciation. In fact the birds of paradise is a great example because some of the breeding strategies have successfully resulted in speciation and some have not and are still able to hybridize due to failures to ostracize.

>>16862349
African fauna are completely fine with humans, african wild dogs famously are not bothered by people like wolves or foxes are. It's fauna outside of Africa that is particularly wary of humans.

>>16863499
>, without ones like it any evolved ecological niches get watered down once isolation ends.
Sure, but the isolation comes first which is my entire point.
In fact, my entire thesis in this whole discussion has been:
>>16862788
>lack of interbreeding *in practice* is generally more important than a lack of *ability* to breed when it comes to defining species.
Which the other anon took issue with

>rapid mutation under in-breeding is as much a feature as it is a bug,
Not super relevant to the core point here, but this isn't even a thing. Inbreeding does not accelerate mutation rate.

>>16863504
Dude. I showed you exactly what he said. He takes issue with the concept of species being arbitrary. He got mad when I said a lack of tendency to interbreed was more important than lack of ability to interbreed.
That's what sparked this whole sidebar.

>>16863634
>He got mad when I said a lack of tendency to interbreed was more important than lack of ability to interbreed.
No he didn't. The argument is whether or not mating practices is an evolved function that sidesteps regular evolutionary fitness in order to cause speciation. Which in turn creates more groups to evolve into the different ecological niches.
Your argument is that isolation is the cause of changes in mating practices and distance between populations causes it. I disagree and brought up the birds of paradise. Isolation isn't the key, its open ecological niches and large or near overpopulation. It just so happens that uninhabited islands tend to have lots of open slots.

>>16863693
>The argument is whether or not mating practices is an evolved function that sidesteps regular evolutionary fitness in order to cause speciation.
That was never the argument. Nobody disagrees with that statement.

>Your argument is that isolation is the cause of changes in mating practices and distance between populations causes it.
Reproductive isolation. You do realize there's more to that then physical boundaries?
*We* don't actually disagree on anything meaningful.
But i want you to reread these two posts to figure out where the disagreement actually lies:
My core these is spelled out here: >>16862788
This is the response I received: >>16862809

>>16863634
>Not super relevant to the core point here, but this isn't even a thing. Inbreeding does not accelerate mutation rate.

It doesn't accelerate mutation rate, it accelerates (in)compatible self-similar combinations in the same way that people with a family beanstalk instead of a tree look like shit. So you get a stronger filter over the diversity that exists, pushing in a new direction.

>>16862831
>some group of orange frogs
Did you just refer to a species? Species are arbitrarily defined. So what makes the frog a frog?
And what does distance even matter when humans can carry them around? Could the utility of whether they breed or not be important, for example, in classifying the frog. Or in trying to create a mutant frog as an exotic pet?

>>16864091
"Frog" is not a species. It's an order (anura).
That aside, frogs are defined by a set of characteristics you can feel free to look up yourself. Those chosen characteristics are, themselves, arbitrary to a degree.

>what does distance even matter when humans can carry them around?
The point wasn't distance. The point was that they don't tend to breed in the wild. The fact that they do breed when humans get involed and make them breed is a consideration we humans have arbitrarily chosen to exclude.

I will reiterate: nearly every species of bear is capable of breeding with nearly any other species of bear and producing viable offspring. Yet we still define them as different species of bear.

>>16864128
So orders are also arbitrary? So which definition is the true one?

>>16864141
See >>16862831
>All life exists on a spectrum. It's all interrelated if you go back far enough. But most of those relationships are sufficiently far back that it would be dumb to lump them in the same box.
>All life on earth being essentially nth cousins of one another is going to lead to some ambiguity in what goes in which box. But we can glean some utility by asking questions about reproductive past and prospective reproduction in the future.

>>16864143
This isn't even an answer. An nth cousin is reasserting the belief, an invalid one by the way because evolution claims don't stretch to the origin of life. So some evolution paradigm could even be true, and the nth cousin could be false. But it at least has a specifier to it in that there are generations that could be numbered even though they never did that activity and it can't even be done for humans - which apparently don't exist because gender is a spectrum.
What criteria is the spectrum varying in? Light uses wavelengths or frequency.

>>16864157
>evolution claims don't stretch to the origin of life.
All contemporary evolutionary models presume a last universal common ancestor (see: LUCA).
>humans - which apparently don't exist
Humans absolutely do exist. The way in which we are distinct from other animals is arbitrary, however. As OP pounted out, there is even dispute over whether Neanderthals should be considered the same species as us and this dispute is purely on definitional grounds.
>What criteria is the spectrum varying in?
Utility in differential classification.

>>16864128
>That aside, frogs are defined by a set of characteristics you can feel free to look up yourself. Those chosen characteristics are, themselves, arbitrary to a degree
Those are identifying characteristics, not defining characteristics. Frogs aren’t defined by any characteristic beyond being part of the lineage we refer to as Anura. We can use the combination of those characteristics to identify a frog because they are unique to Anurans, but if something were to convergently evolve all those same characteristics that wouldn’t suddenly make it a frog
>>16864141
They are. All levels of taxonomy are arbitrary. You can make as many distinct taxonomic groups as you want for each lineage. That’s why there are like five subgroups between family and species for the modern human whereas with most other animals you’d be lucky to get a subfamily thrown in. The only thing separating one taxa from another is the absence of all the intermediates going back to their last common ancestor
>>16864169
>All contemporary evolutionary models presume a last universal common ancestor (see: LUCA).
LUCA is not the origin of life, it’s not even necessarily the first living organism. It is just the last common ancestor of all known organisms

>>16864203
>Those are identifying characteristics, not defining characteristics. Frogs aren’t defined by any characteristic beyond being part of the lineage we refer to as Anura
Fair.

>LUCA is not the origin of life
I never said it was. What I said is all life is nth cousins. Other anon replied that this isn't true because "evolution claims don't stretch to the origin of life."
I mentioned LUCA to point out that, even without going back to the origin of life, all life is still nth cousins.

>>16864169
The question is how is this spectrum varying and you say its varies in its classification. Light has a nature which is varying, not some bogus reification fallacy.
>>16864449
You don't understand the objection. If life has multiple origin moments, it is possible for branches to never connect.

>>16862300
All life is classed under the pro generation of the first organism. Thus successive organisms create sub-classifications which are classes in their own right. Species are only determined by their relation to each other in the tree of life, and all other classifications are faulty and arbitrary. We can only ever say Homo or Homo Sapiens refer to a point in time that we do not have record of, though there are spiritual, genetic and physiological markers that empirically define such an analogue of our classification, which is our kind.

This is our nature and there is no need to hide it for any political reason. We must have politics conform to nature, not the other way around. That is Natural Law, which Indo-Europeans referred to by many other names, such as Dharma or The Way across all their different language families. Pagang for life.

>>16864720
>Light has a nature which is varying, not some bogus reification fallacy
And definitions have a nature which is varying, it's called "whatever humans fucking feel like because we invented them."
Don't be word brained.

>You don't understand the objection. If life has multiple origin moments, it is possible for branches to never connect.
You don't understand my response.
>All contemporary evolutionary models presume a last universal common ancestor (see: LUCA).
While it's theoretically possible for there to be no LUCA, contemporary models, and the evidence supporting them, indicate that there most likely is.

>>16864740
So evolution is synonymous with human whimsy and is not true.
Agreed.
How likely is it compared to other possibilities? Because you just made that up on the spot.

>>16864803
>So evolution is synonymous with human whimsy and is not true.
No.
How we classify living things is subject to human whimsy though.
Just like how "red" is subject to however we define it and present context but wavelength is not. "Species" is the sane way while what number "n" is for nth cousins is not.

>How likely is it compared to other possibilities? Because you just made that up on the spot.
I've been telling you to look this up, retard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

>>16864808
>>16864808
Red isn't defined by its wavelength.Many colors that can be seen are not actually wavelengths at all. This is trivially demonstrated through pixels.
The wikipedia article offers no formula or estimation for the probability of LUCA.
You can't even make a pointer to an argument here. You make something up and you think a wikipedia article that doesn't address it is the answer.
And then you have the balls to tell me to use a search engine.
This is your mind on academia.

>>16864860
>Red isn't defined by its wavelength.Many colors that can be seen are not actually wavelengths at all. This is trivially demonstrated through pixels.
Nigger, what is it that you think makes those pixels look red? How do you think that shit works?
"Red" is tentatively defined as the range between 620 and 750nm. But given that it's arbitrary, you will find other ranges if you go searching.

>The wikipedia article offers no formula or estimation for the probability of LUCA.
But it does clearly state:
>On the basis of a formal statistical test, this theory of a universal common ancestry (UCA) is supported in preference to competing multiple-ancestry hypotheses.
So your claim that I made it up is plainly false. Wanna know how they went about this "formal statistical test" or what the final probabilities are? Go fucking look it up.

>>16862228
Nice picture oh pee, I'd say rudolf looking too monkey for most? Also, no bodies here

>>16862831
>That cross-breeding will pretty much never happen
Famous fucking last words in many a conservationist's career.

>>16862228
>Feel about the "libcuck"(I can't think of a better term) definition for the "human species"(homo sapiens)?
Every single species concept is a fuck. The biological one is no exception.

>Should this particular criteria for inclusion into a species be applied universally
No, because hybridization is a thing. Rigorously applying the biological definition of species would expand a shitton of them to include all similar organisms that can produce a fertile hybrid. Different chromosome counts are not an issue in many cases. And once we've defined populations A and B as one species because hybrids AB are fertile, we'd have to expand it further because of hybrids BC, and then hybrids CD, even though A and D are populations of really fucking different organisms. We'd end up with species stretched wider than families, making the rank utterly fucking useless.

>should a standardized difference in genetics
No such fucking thing as "standardized difference in genetics". Whatever you choose - Fst, Nm, Gst, G'st, Djost, and through whichever markers, every single one of those measures only has any meaning in the context of a specific organism with it's peculiarities of minimum and maximum generation duration, reproduction strategy, mutation rate, etc. Or rather those for a group of such organisms. You know, a species. If I need to explain why trying to define a species through something is itself defined through species then I'd have to suggest immediate removal from the genepool due to profound mental retardation. But don't kys tho as you'd most likely be too dumb to do it right. Point being that there can be no standard genetic yardstick to define species. We can empirically come up with yardsticks that more or less work within certain groups (like COI barcode gaps), but the same yardsticks would be utterly useless in different groups, and eve the target group would always have some exceptions that keep us form applying it rigorously.

>>16864878
>>16864882
Genuinely curious: why do you keep deleting and re-uploading these posts?
Typos?

Anyway, to respond to >>16864878
>Famous fucking last words in many a conservationist's career.
I see what you're getting at. But these sorts of events/dynamics absolutely did occur. Prior to reproductive incompatibility there had to be reproductively isolated populations that drifted apart over time.
Whether the "rule" here tends towards a future merging before incompatibility occurs or if growing distinction is the more typical case is hardly the point here.

>>16862228
Dogs and wolves are the same species?

File: 1D274906489008-img-5550[1].jpg (3.73 MB, 5184x3456)

3.73 MB JPG

>>16862228
Not a good definition because Homo sapiens could probably produce viable offspring with most of those species. There's no evidence that humans can't mate with chimp and produce offspring that are sterile much like a horse and donkey produce a mule. Shoats (picrel) are pretty cute looking, the offspring of a goat and a sheep.

>>16864889
>There's no evidence that humans can't mate with chimp and produce offspring that are sterile much like a horse and donkey produce a mule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanov

>>16864890
He might have been successful if the Stalinist regime didn't look on science in a negative light. This paper describes the human sperm penetrating the outer layers of a gibbon egg
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.1091880407

>>16864884
>Typos?
Ye. And then I felt like I should mention barcode gaps and the like.

>Prior to reproductive incompatibility there had to be reproductively isolated populations that drifted apart over time.
Not necessarily. Spacial isolation is not the only mechanism for speciation, though it is one of the more common ones. And my point was that while you are right that in practice zoologists do simply adopt the convention of
>"well these two do produce viable offspring/show no discernible clading or clusterization/etc but we're treating them as two different groups because we just know what we're talking about here okay???"
this practical approach is also a fuck just as much as any rigorous approach. It turns out that animal migrations are unpredictable enough that, seeing how many species there are, there's constantly a substantial number of unpleasant surprises where we were certain that A and B would never meet, yet here's their fucking offspring somehow taking over Madagaskar, and no funding to clean that mess up in sight. And that's before anthropogenic dispersal barged in and made everything a million times worse. Convention is useful, but teh whole reason behind the existence of rigorous methodology is that convention is constantly fucking wrong.

>>16863598
Africans arent the dominant species on their continent

Dont speak for earlier ancestors

>>16864866
>red is defined as a range of wavelengths
Incorrect. Red is a color. You have already given up your initial position by now equating a wavelength with a so-called range of wavelengths. This is now a categorical problem on top of being wrong.
In keeping with the mind on academia thread, you now pull out a normative claim from a wikipedia article which again does not state the probability of the event versus any others.
You actually can't make it through a sentence without contradicting yourself, moving the goalposts, and sneeding. The reddit trinity.

>>16867075
You're dumb

>>16867140
I don't even know what you two are arguing about, but since you're too retarded even to grasp the difference between external stimuli and internal perceptions, even in cases where the lack of one-to-one mapping is obvious, I'll just assume he's right and that you lost the argument.

>>16867144
Simplifying language is not a sign of a lack of comprehension.

>>16867146
>i was just heckin' "simplifying"
Sounds like you admit red is not a "wavelength". That anon is now free to accept your concession.

>>16867149
I'm not even the one who opened that line of discussion. I was speaking in the same terms as the other person I was arguing with.

>>16867162
As far as I can tell, you tried to make some kind of argument based on a flawed analogy with the premise that wavelength is an objective way to talk about colors, as opposed to the labels humans assign to them. Since you now acknowledge the mapping between labels and colors is pretty iffy, maybe you can learn something from your own failed argument.

>>16867174
between wavelengths and colors*

>>16867174
I said all life exists on a spectrum. He asked what quality is this spectrum varying on, using light as an example.

>Since you now acknowledge the mapping between labels and colors is pretty iffy, maybe you can learn something from your own failed argument.
It actually supports my core claim that taxonomic labels are arbitrary despite being related to actual phenomena.

>>16867189
>a failed analogy supports my false conclusion
Nope.

>>16867200
I'm not the one who made the analogy.
Do you actually have a coherent point here or are you just harping on pedantry?

>>16864897
>He might have been successful if the Stalinist regime didn't look on science in a negative light.
Maybe just don't go around having sex with monkeys, you freak?

>>16867204
Is the following post yours?
>>16864808
>How we classify living things is subject to human whimsy though.
>Just like how "red" is subject to however we define it and present context but wavelength is not.

>>16867217
Sure is. It was a reference to this post:
>>16864720
>Light has a nature which is varying, not some bogus reification fallacy.

>>16867364
>Sure is.
Ok. So you tried to make some kind of argument based on a flawed analogy with the premise that wavelength is an objective way to talk about colors, as opposed to the labels humans assign to them. Since you now acknowledge the mapping between labels and colors is pretty iffy, maybe you can learn something from your own failed argument.

>inb4 your moronic 80 IQ monkey ass repeats that it didn't heckin' make the analogy, even though you're quoted as explicitly employing it to make your retarded point

>>16862228
Applying fixed definitions to fluid realities is always going to fail.

>>16867368
The accuracy of the analogy was not relevant to the argument being made.
When your IQ enters the triple digits, you understand the utility of parsing out the information as it's intended to be communicated rather than harping on irrelevant details.

I ask again: do you have a coherent point to make or are you going to continue hammering down on pedantry?

File: hq720[1].jpg (84 KB, 1280x720)

84 KB JPG

>>16867212
I want my Humanzee supersoldiers. Strength, CNS, and reflexes of a chimp. Size of a human. Intelligent enough to take orders.

Even the histrionic shill can't defend evolution, so he finds it better to be histrionic. Thankfully no scientists are on this board. It's embarrassing having the one true defender be some empty sperger pissing about red.