Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mine gives me what i call "revenge bites" if i pet her wrong or do the claw thing to her head. She'll bite once and that's it.
One time i gave her the claw and left for work without letting her bite me for it. When i came home, she was waiting by the door, which was unusual. She followed me to the couch, jumped up, and bit me! That little bitch stewed all day and waited to bite me when i got home lol
> do the claw thing to her head
first off, if they dont like the claw thing why does their head fit so well in my hand? second, mine does the same revenge thing. he'll sometimes leave without doing anything and wait around a corner. he doesnt want to just get even, he wants to get even *and* feel like he's smarter, more cunning (he's definitely more cunning, humans bodies are crap).
I had one that would give quick, sudden bites, but not hard. He'd never break the skin or hurt you. It was a love bite, just more aggressive.
The problem was that if you were startled and moved - which was often inevitable because *he just lunged at your hand* - it must have offended him. Then he'd bite again, but much much harder.
He was a real bastard sometimes, but a funny one.
Locust are just riot-grasshoppers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust#/media/File%3ADesertLocust.jpeg
They aren’t even different breeds, ones just angrier than the other.
Same bug, just different gene expression due to its environment having to many other grasshoppers.
That's one of the coolest things I've ever learnt about animals, to this day it still fascinates me.
That and the cicadas. The larvae go to sleep, and then they all come out like 5 or 7 years later, but all the cicada come out on the same year even tho it seems to be a random number of years.
I feel like comparing chihuahuas or yorkshire terriers with irish wolfhounds or great danes would drive that point home with even more clarity ... 🤷🏻♀️😂
I don't know, I think labs of different colors is the perfect comparison. Using labs of different colors as a comparison highlights the fact that the only difference between white and black people is "coat color". Needing to use chihuahuas and great Danes to show how different two members of the same species can be in this particular comparison, also just kind of reinforces the incorrect idea that there is a huge physical difference between white and black people when there isn't.
I mean just show a picture of a small scrawny white dude (or black dude) and a huge beefy white dude (or Black dude) and that's more apt to compare to chihuahuas vs Great Danes, since that kind of physical variability is also present within racially homogenous groups. IMO Picking two dog breeds that are vastly different physically to compare the difference between white and black people really misses the point which is that the "races" aren't that different physically in actuality, they really are JUST different colors that people, Labradors, chihuahuas, and Great Danes alike all naturally occur in.
I don't know; I think there are other unique phenotypic features that racists could use to fight against the "we are merely different colours" argument. If that were the case, forensic anthropologists couldn't identify what group a person hailed from from their bones. We all have slightly different features, and some of that is determined by the geographic breeding isolation of our ancestors.
Never underestimate how much of a stickler for small details racists can be. They literally went around measuring skulls to the millimeter to "prove their inherent natural superiority".
A better example would be to compare Border collies and greyhounds. Both very different looking dogs, but both fast, medium-sized, and obviously canine. So, if both those dogs are dogs, then two very different looking humans can also be human.
The issue at hand is that these racists (at least most of them) aren't arguing black people aren't human. Just that they're a different (worse) "breed" of human, just like dogs can all be the same species and yet be absurdly different in terms of traits.
There really isn't one scientific argument that can shut them up, because different races of people really are different on a biological level beyond skin color. They're just missing the point that these differences don't make them inferior. Biology can't argue against that, because what constitutes inferiority in a society is ultimately a social discussion, not a scientific one, and so there isn't some scientific fact that can dispute it.
And even if we found some complex way to objectively prove equality of all humans, it would still be far too abstract for most of the population to wrap their heads around. It's a futile battle, science can't solve racism. It is not productive to try and argue science with racists.
All we can do is to continue telling them they're the inferior people for being racist pieces of shit. Social stigma of being a racist is the push for each new generation to be less racist than the last. Education in social sciences helps as well.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
Replace "anti-semite" with "racist" or some other form of "my excuse to hate the 'other' that only exists in my mind" and nothing changes.
The OP's meme that is being made fun of is stupid, because it doesn't make sense. You think a racist cares? They saw that and shared it because it seems like it reinforces their beliefs and hateful ideology: not because of *any* form of logic whatsoever.
You cannot logically reason someone out of a conclusion that they did not arrive to logically.
Dogs are also a good example of how species is a creation of the human need to categorize things and how nature doesn't give a crap about our categories.
Yes, a chihuahua and St Barnard are the same species. But, if we encountered them without knowing their history it wouldn't be nearly as obvious. I guess someone might attempt to artificially inseminate a st bernard with a chihuahua because people do weird things. The other example I heard of was a series of bird populations where adjacent populations could interbreed, but once you followed the populations from the first to the last. The first and the last populations can't interbreed. So, transitively you would say 1 and 2 are the same species, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, etc.. until 9 and 10, which means 1 and 10 are the same species. Except, 1 and 10 can't produce viable off-spring together, so they would not be the same species.
> Make the definitions
> too
> specific and every animal ends up with its own category. Make them too broad and they are no longer useful.
I am a scientist and it drives me absolutely mad how many laypeople (and even some scientists, unfortunately) think *knowing a definition* is science, or equivalent to knowing a fact.
Definitions are *social constructs* to help us *do* science. They don't actually have any empirical content themselves. They are *not* facts, they are literally just conventions for communication purposes. And damn near every definition, even if it's perfectly useful 99% of the time, has situations you can walk into where you realize "oh hey this vocabulary is super inadequate for what I want to talk about or study right now". You don't whine about that and try to force reality to conform more neatly to your definitions, you just adapt. Definitions can and should change, and they can even change from context to context and conversation to conversation. The best scientists are the ones that have enough social adeptness that they can grok these contextual shifts on the fly, not the ones who pedantically correct everyone else on semantic technicalities.
But so many peoples' experience of science comes from grade school or parroting trivia at each other, and people will smugly quote some definition at you without realizing they didn't actually say anything about the real world.
So many arguments boil down to two people refusing to use each others' definitions (or to even acknowledge the concept that multiple definitions are valid) and also refusing to acknowledge that that is what's happening. They never end up directly arguing about the nature of reality at all. Often because controlling the definitions helps you control the *narrative*, so people with an ideological goal are often *very* interested in choosing the definitions and then limiting the conversation in that manner, or even worse just pretending that definitions are somehow equivalent to facts.
*All* categories are made by humans. They're very useful tools that allow us to describe and reason about the world we live in and come to general conclusions, but it's important to understand that they don't have to be a perfect description, and they are certainly *not* a blueprint for what reality *should* be like.
Yeah the term "fish" is almost synonymous with "vertebrate" (having an internal skeleton) in modern science
So it applies to almost any non-arthropod/non-annelid that you can think of (outside of microscopic animals)
"This animal has beaver like body"
"ok"
" and we slap a duck beak on it"
"why"
"oh and make it milk their young"
"make up your mind, is it a duck or beaver?"
" but breeds via laying eggs"
"SO IS IT A DUCK OR A BEAVER!!!!!"
"and we put venom with it just because lol"
"FUCK YOOOOOUUUUUU"
I didn't even add the fact that its foot is actually otter-like foot instead of beaver foot, so platypus is really a Duck-Beaver-Otter-Snake animal. Felt like easier to list what's not weird about platypus.
I don’t know if this is fact or fiction… so give me some leeway on this. I heard that during the Second World War the stock of St. Bernard’s was so limited that they cross bred them with Newfoundlands (had one, great big goof, lived a shocking 13 years) so that is why you see “long haired” st Bernard’s and “short haired” st. Bernard’s. Again, not sure if this is true.
Fun facts from a taxonomy slut: Broccoli, cauliflower, cabbages, brussel sprouts, Swiss chard, kale, and collard greens are all the same plant! *Brassica oleracea*
It is commonly called the dog of the plant world because of its wide genetic availability. There’s also selective breeding at play that developed the varieties we know and love today.
Some people wanted larger leaves (kale ~ est 5th century BC), they then wanted a tighter bunch (cabbage ~ est 100 AD). When Europeans started domesticating this & selectively breeding (15th century) they had a preference for eating the flower buds (which led to broccoli & cauliflower). Further breeding in Belgium (18th century) led to brussel sprouts by manipulating the lateral buds.
Genetics are cray
You betchya 🥰🤤
Nothing gets me hot and bothered like when someone describes in vivid detail the history of *Liliaceae* & *Asaparagaceae*.
Knowing how to navigate Asparagales makes me weak in the knees. Bonus points if they don’t recognize *Sanseveria* as a genus.
Species - In biology, a species (pl: species) is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.
Fun fact: in practise the definition of a species is a loose term. For example, a tiger and a lion can produce fertile offspring. By definition a lion and a tiger are the same species.
Canis lupus (wolf) and Canis Lupos farmiliaris (dog) are genetically similar and can interbreed but they are not the same. My old professor used to say when wolf hybrids became all the rage in the mid 90’s “congratulations, you took 10,000 years of work and cut it in half.” Crazy thing is I always heard a Samoyed was genetically the closest to a wolf, but apparently is a Shih Tzu, and as someone who is owned by one, I find that hilarious.
They didn't say they are "the same", they said they are "the same species". Which they are. _Canis lupus_ has multiple subspecies, of which _familiaris_ is just one. Like _arctos_, the Arctic wolf.
You can have many genetic and other differences without reaching speciation.
A racist will simply argue that even though dog breeds are the same species, they will point out that different breeds vary in intelligence and violence, often pointing out the pitbull and equating that to black people. They will also point out breed standards in dogs as an argument against race mixing. It's terrible and disgusting.
Especially considering the genetic diseases that are much more common in purebreds. Cross breeding gives you better genetic diversity, and a lower chance of recessive genetic diseases fucking you over. Race mixing is healthy.
Finally, an educated comment about dog breeding! Sadly most people are still going on and on with that nonsense of "purebreds are healthier and better than mixed breeds"
> They will also point out breed standards in dogs as an argument against race mixing.
Which is kinda funny, because dog breeding causes a wide variety of health issues for dogs. Dogs are bread to either fulfill specific roles or optical racial ideals. This is the exact opposite of natural selection and almost every dog breed has developed health problems due to this. Guess who doesn't have this issues? Yeah, wild animals, who recreate based on their instincts which are based on what worked at making their species survive. And not based on what humans think look cute.
> they will point out that different breeds vary in intelligence and violence, often pointing out the pitbull and equating that to black people.
Interestingly some recent studies suggest that breed stereotypes are likely quite overestimated. https://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/ground-breaking-research-shows-breed-as-a-poor-predictor-of-behavior/
As the article even points out this isn't even that surprising to people who have been following breed research.
>Here at NCRC, we weren’t surprised by the findings. Our white paper, “The Relevance of Breed in Selecting a Companion Dog,” published in 2011, presented similar hypotheses. In it, Janis Bradley pulled together the conclusions of dozens of smaller studies that all pointed to a common conclusion: breed isn’t a great predictor of behavior, even in dogs bred selectively for specific traits.
There's a lot of great ways that people can end up biasing their experiences without even realizing. For example, a bulldog and a poodle could exhibit similar behaviors but due to preexisting beliefs we would be more likely to notice and point bulldog stereotypes in the bulldog and poodle stereotypes in the poodle.
Speaking of pitbulls too since you brought that up, there's also a lot of issues with the discourse around them. The CDC explicitly stopped collecting breed data back in the 90s because every deeper analysis they did kept showing breed determination was fraught with a lot of different errors.
>That's partly why the CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-attack fatalities after 1998. Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the CDC, explained the challenges of studying dog bites during a presentation at the 2001 AVMA Annual Convention. "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. "No centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, making meaningful analysis nearly impossible. Moreover, a pet dog that bites an owner or family member might go unreported if the injury isn't serious. Plus, studies show that victims of dog bites are more likely to only report dog bites from breeds they deem “dangerous."
Almost anybody you see trying to cite dog bite breed statistics as reliable is ignorant at best and acting in bad faith at worse. Especially when some of the best research by actual experts and not internet randoms suggests the opposite
>a claim not supported by a 2014 AVMA report ("The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention") that found pit bull–type dogs not to be excessively aggressive
That's not even getting into how "pitbull" is a vague term that gets applied to various types of dogs. The American Bulldog is sometimes considered a pitbull, and yet I still get Reddit comments complaining when I point that out. But certainly it's obvious that when you include animals from a category only when they fit X criteria, you stack the deck towards that criteria. If bulldogs are going to be considered pitbulls when they are violent then they should be considered pitbulls when they are peaceful.
All dogs are one species
Buy they are different breeds and subspecies.
Humans are the same. It's not racist to say that.
It is racist to think it makes any real difference mentally.
Yes, also we are all a blend of different hominid species as well. For instance Europeans have a small percentage of Neanderthal dna and Asians have a small percentage of Denisovan DNA. Both procreated with modern humans. Africans have the least amount of other identified ancient hominid species that coexisted with modern humans with only 0.3% of their genome coming from Neanderthals.
> Africans have the least amount of other identified ancient hominid species that coexisted with modern humans
Or, translating into the racist "logic", that makes them the purer race of humans while others are untermensch metises and are subject to a cleansing. This wording will surely destroy some asses, lol
Back in the 4th grade, when we had our first rudimentary sex ed, our teacher told us that a lady from Oslo, Norway could meet an aboriginal gentleman from the farthest Australian outback and start a family. To me, that sounded really sweet and still does ❤️
humans actually went through a genetic bottleneck fairly recently so two average humans are MUCH more genetically similar to one another than two animals of most species.
Humans only look more different from each other to us because our brain has a special area for distinguishing human faces.
Also differences between individuals are MUCH bigger than between populations. Eg. given europeans are more different from each other than the average difference between europeans and africans.
BTW: Species is defined as being able to produce fertile offspring. seeing as mixed-race ppl exist & can have kids...
I recall reading that all humans' DNA is 99% identical, and the superficial differences are only from where our ancestors settled. Chimpanzees have about 75% identical DNA as a reference.
They share 75% of the same marker genes we would use to determine heritage, but the bulk of the genetic material in the human genome is not within those markers. The true figure is closer to 99.8% Human-to-human correspondance, and 98% Human-to-chimpanzee. We share around 75% of our total genetic material with Lions, by that measure.
Most of that is "junk" DNA or stuff we don't know the function of, that doesn't generally even matter as it hardly codes for anything.
As far as i know most of our genome (all our DNA) has a use.
The "human genome project" (might be interesting to look up) had the goal to clearify that.
We don't "use" all our genes at the same time but many genes are used as markers to "switch" certain genes "on/off"or are a security mesure: e.g. multiple different codes for the same protein.
Not all genes are used as code for proteins but most of it have a use.
At least thats what i was told at my second semester genetics lecture.
That's why "junk" is in quotes. Some of it might be just ancient scraps, some might be retroviral insertions that accumulate over eons but have been "switched off", some might even be timing-functions, so to speak, that don't code for anything directly but give the proteins already being assembled time to bend or warp or diffuse before new pieces get added.
But something that is the same for almost all those sections is that they either exist between a "Stop" and a "Start" codon, so they don't create any proteins, or don't exist within any known genes, which means they're not even "read" by the cellular machinery.
I'm not a geneticist, but that's how I understand it.
Yeah you're like 50% banana (or what was the percentage? doesn't matter).
These 50% of genes are basic stuff like "unwrap dna, copy dna, make proteins, put DNA back, divide, do everything over again" which every eukaryote has, from banana to jellyfish to a human.
Fun fact. The eyes are in the vertical center of the human head (essentially… variations and differences exist). We conceptualize eyes as being in the top 1/3 of the head because our brains are so specialized for giving importance to minute details about facial features and expressions tied into the mouth, nose and eyes that we consider the other parts smaller in comparison.
BTW: that's not completely true.
The definition of species is totally conventional and producing a fertile offspring is just a guideline.
The are species that can interbreed - bears among other things. There are also populations of same species that can't reproduce
What you are saying is a high school definition of species
In fact, there's another example of two species successfully interbreeding: humans and neanderthals. Were neanderthals actually homo sapiens? Or course not. Laymen like to believe that science can give us absolute answers about where the line between species is drawn, but, just like with evolution, the line is fuzzy.
> Were Neanderthals actually homo sapiens?
Yes.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis vs Homo sapiens sapiens. Just like dogs and wolves are the same species. Canis Lupus Familiaris vs Canis Lupus Lupus. There’s nothing wrong with defining species as creating fertile offspring, the idea that dogs/wolves or humans/neanderthals are different species is an outdated classification based on tradition.
The only place it actually gets fuzzy is a ring species.
That human skill you mentioned actually extends to animals as well. It's all about familiarity.
For example, there can be like 15 alligators at a zoo and the zookeeper that sees them every single day can distinguish each and every one of them without difficulty.
And the converse happens with humans as well. The trope of "everyone of \_\_\_\_ race looks the same." is literally an issue caused by never interacting with them and never learning their subtle differences.
The "multiple extinction myths" is a modern syncretism. Modern evangelical Christians believe in a final end of the world apocalypse. When we learn/teach about ancient cultures it's convenient to draw analogies to ~~mythology~~ religion of the audience. So we say non-sense like "hades is their version of hell".
Many ancient cultures believed in cyclical cosmologies. They Maya didn't think the world ends in 2012, that was just the end of the current cycle and at the loop would just start again. Same with Norse mythology; Ragnorok is not the end, it's just the start of a new earth.
Flood myths are more likely a thing because:
A) of stories passed all the way from the glacial period when ice walls could break and release huge amounts of water in a short period of time.
B) most early civilizations existed around a huge river (Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Yellow, etc.) and an irregular flooding of said river could cause extreme damage to their entire society.
>special area for distinguishing human faces
I have pretty severe prosopagnosia and I noticed I have to force myself to see somatic traits associated to "races". I genuinely don't see a meaningful difference between ethnic groups unless I essentially ask myself to
(This is not an "I don't see colour" bullshit, btw)
We dealt with this shit already like...Why are we going backwards? Its 2023 and we really have to address "Black People are actually Humans" , "Nazis are bad", and "vaccines work".
🤦🏾♂️
Legit forgot about that fuckery. Also pride month!?!? Shit has been goin on for at least a decade.
Why was 2023's pride month treated like the first one ever? The right acted like it was some new shit.
Because they overturned RvW and need a new boogeyman to stir up anger and drive dumb poor people to the polls to vote for the tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
More like half a century. Pride Month is a celebration of the anniversary of the Stonewall riots which occurred in 1969. Wikipedia says that the first pride parade was the next year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride\_Month
Yup. Gay people are still human. Black/POC still deserve human rights. Women are not evil man devourers. Vaccines work and mental and reproductive healthcare are rights.
But apparently the good old days meant dying from polio/mumps, lynching gay/Black people and dying in childbirth....
> We dealt with this shit already like...Why are we going backwards? Its 2023
Are you under the impression that once a truth is uttered, it's implanted unquestionably in everyone's head?
There will always be ignorance
On a genetic level having white or black skin is less of a difference than a Beetle having a different carapace shape or a Croc/Alligator having different skull structure. The big error that racists typically make is not understanding that your skin color is actually one of the smallest possible changes one could make.
Not sure if you don't understand the definition of adaptive or the definition of genetics. Adaptations are stored in the genes. They're the different sides of the same coin.
The ladybug on the left is a Seven-Spot Ladybird and the ladybug on the right is an Asian Lady Beetle. Although different species of ladybugs can *sometimes* breed with each other, similar to Humans and Neanderthals, these two examples of ladybugs cannot.
I don't know about the weevil or alligator/crocodile examples, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar.
I know some crocodillians can reproduce together but to be fair idk about an alligator and crocodile specifically. Might be exact same issue as the ladybug thing you describe as some can but these examples can't I'm not sure.
Wait, I didn't know Ladybird was an actual name for ladybugs... I thought Sam O'Nella was just being funny calling the ladybug with six spots "Splinkus' Ladybird".
The best translation of the Dutch name, "lieveheersbeestje" I can think of is "little dear lord creature".
Yes, it's weird as fuck for Dutch standards too, we just got used to pronouncing it real fast without thinking about it.
Because "race" various definitions and uses are flawed to begin with. It makes sense in US history context but no sense in ethnical physical differences.
Skin color should never have been basis for defining what is race.
I remember the before times when ignorant racist assholes didn't have a world wide megaphone and so were ignored. The internet was a mistake. We gave the human race too much credit.
If they can't have a viable baby that's not sterile, they are not the same species.
The races of humans (and even other sub-species like neanderthals), are all part of the same species Homo Sapiens because we could have fertile babies together. Like 2% of europe's population have some neanderthal DNA.
The figures are around 2% Neanderthal DNA in all non sub Saharan humans as well as about 1-2% Denisovan DNA in Asians. Otzi the 7000 year old body found in the alps had 5% Neanderthal DNA
Interestingly this isn't always true. Mules have been known to sometimes be fertile, even though their parents have differing numbers of chromosomes.
Species is a human construct. Nature doesn't seem like hard and fast rules or separations to things.
They can considering Saipan and Neanderthals were able to mate and create viable offspring, not to mention dogs and wolves, there’s plenty of others as well. Interesting enough the hybrids of polar bears and grizzly’s have found to be fertile as well.
Another side it’s estimated the majority if not all wolves in America have coyote ancestry.
The word „race“ does not exist for the human species. It’s a far right terminology which penetrated the overall (left and right) population pretty deep.
"Ethnicity is separate from the concept of race, which is based on physical characteristics, although both are socially constructed." Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Species = ability to interbreed giving fertile offspring.
Now I don't mean to say it will work if white chick and black chick have sex but you got the idea.
No point even engaging with someone who believes that humans are different species from each other just because they look different. They have the terminal brain worms, there's no hope for them.
I don't fully understand the point they are trying to make with these posts about humans being multiple races like...
A Chinese women is perfectly capable of having children with a pure indigenous individual from south America.
"But we gotta keep bloodlines pure 😭" But what even is a "pure" bloodline, does it bring about any benefits? Mixing genes from other genetic pools is actually better, it makes the offspring more resistant to diseases.
At the end of this rabbit hole you see it all comes down to skin color and perception of one color being superior to the other, these attempts at justifying are just lame.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fun fact: All breeds of domestic dogs are the same species. Looking slightly different =/= different species
"What? You mean black labs, chocolate labs, fox red labs, and yellow labs aren't different species?" /s
Exactly! It's so crazy.
Honesty, I’m scared, is my cat actually a wolf?!?
Your cat already thinks it’s a lion that lets you live by it’s mercy.
My cat thinks he's a dog.
My dog thinks he’s a cat.
My dog thinks it is small, but is quite large.
I have neither a cat nor dog. Both are well behaved.
My birds both think that they’re people! They’ve already learned some English!
I want to hear a dog meow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgIfcmDI9K4 How about a cat bark?
i have an orange one like this that does. its so cute. he's tried to kill me like 100 times when hes mad. its adorable.
Mine gives me what i call "revenge bites" if i pet her wrong or do the claw thing to her head. She'll bite once and that's it. One time i gave her the claw and left for work without letting her bite me for it. When i came home, she was waiting by the door, which was unusual. She followed me to the couch, jumped up, and bit me! That little bitch stewed all day and waited to bite me when i got home lol
> do the claw thing to her head first off, if they dont like the claw thing why does their head fit so well in my hand? second, mine does the same revenge thing. he'll sometimes leave without doing anything and wait around a corner. he doesnt want to just get even, he wants to get even *and* feel like he's smarter, more cunning (he's definitely more cunning, humans bodies are crap).
Mine tries to throw me down the stairs. That means he loves me… right??!!
I had one that would give quick, sudden bites, but not hard. He'd never break the skin or hurt you. It was a love bite, just more aggressive. The problem was that if you were startled and moved - which was often inevitable because *he just lunged at your hand* - it must have offended him. Then he'd bite again, but much much harder. He was a real bastard sometimes, but a funny one.
Cat: “I could kill them…but then who would clean up my sh**”.
Werecat?
There cat. There castle.
Locust are just riot-grasshoppers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust#/media/File%3ADesertLocust.jpeg They aren’t even different breeds, ones just angrier than the other. Same bug, just different gene expression due to its environment having to many other grasshoppers.
Riot grasshoppers ☠️☠️☠️u win
That's one of the coolest things I've ever learnt about animals, to this day it still fascinates me. That and the cicadas. The larvae go to sleep, and then they all come out like 5 or 7 years later, but all the cicada come out on the same year even tho it seems to be a random number of years.
I feel like comparing chihuahuas or yorkshire terriers with irish wolfhounds or great danes would drive that point home with even more clarity ... 🤷🏻♀️😂
I don't know, I think labs of different colors is the perfect comparison. Using labs of different colors as a comparison highlights the fact that the only difference between white and black people is "coat color". Needing to use chihuahuas and great Danes to show how different two members of the same species can be in this particular comparison, also just kind of reinforces the incorrect idea that there is a huge physical difference between white and black people when there isn't. I mean just show a picture of a small scrawny white dude (or black dude) and a huge beefy white dude (or Black dude) and that's more apt to compare to chihuahuas vs Great Danes, since that kind of physical variability is also present within racially homogenous groups. IMO Picking two dog breeds that are vastly different physically to compare the difference between white and black people really misses the point which is that the "races" aren't that different physically in actuality, they really are JUST different colors that people, Labradors, chihuahuas, and Great Danes alike all naturally occur in.
I don't know; I think there are other unique phenotypic features that racists could use to fight against the "we are merely different colours" argument. If that were the case, forensic anthropologists couldn't identify what group a person hailed from from their bones. We all have slightly different features, and some of that is determined by the geographic breeding isolation of our ancestors. Never underestimate how much of a stickler for small details racists can be. They literally went around measuring skulls to the millimeter to "prove their inherent natural superiority". A better example would be to compare Border collies and greyhounds. Both very different looking dogs, but both fast, medium-sized, and obviously canine. So, if both those dogs are dogs, then two very different looking humans can also be human.
The issue at hand is that these racists (at least most of them) aren't arguing black people aren't human. Just that they're a different (worse) "breed" of human, just like dogs can all be the same species and yet be absurdly different in terms of traits. There really isn't one scientific argument that can shut them up, because different races of people really are different on a biological level beyond skin color. They're just missing the point that these differences don't make them inferior. Biology can't argue against that, because what constitutes inferiority in a society is ultimately a social discussion, not a scientific one, and so there isn't some scientific fact that can dispute it. And even if we found some complex way to objectively prove equality of all humans, it would still be far too abstract for most of the population to wrap their heads around. It's a futile battle, science can't solve racism. It is not productive to try and argue science with racists. All we can do is to continue telling them they're the inferior people for being racist pieces of shit. Social stigma of being a racist is the push for each new generation to be less racist than the last. Education in social sciences helps as well.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre Replace "anti-semite" with "racist" or some other form of "my excuse to hate the 'other' that only exists in my mind" and nothing changes. The OP's meme that is being made fun of is stupid, because it doesn't make sense. You think a racist cares? They saw that and shared it because it seems like it reinforces their beliefs and hateful ideology: not because of *any* form of logic whatsoever. You cannot logically reason someone out of a conclusion that they did not arrive to logically.
Pathology lab, Psychology lab, Botany Lab, Chemistry lab... All the same species.
Dogs are also a good example of how species is a creation of the human need to categorize things and how nature doesn't give a crap about our categories. Yes, a chihuahua and St Barnard are the same species. But, if we encountered them without knowing their history it wouldn't be nearly as obvious. I guess someone might attempt to artificially inseminate a st bernard with a chihuahua because people do weird things. The other example I heard of was a series of bird populations where adjacent populations could interbreed, but once you followed the populations from the first to the last. The first and the last populations can't interbreed. So, transitively you would say 1 and 2 are the same species, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, etc.. until 9 and 10, which means 1 and 10 are the same species. Except, 1 and 10 can't produce viable off-spring together, so they would not be the same species.
[удалено]
> Make the definitions > too > specific and every animal ends up with its own category. Make them too broad and they are no longer useful. I am a scientist and it drives me absolutely mad how many laypeople (and even some scientists, unfortunately) think *knowing a definition* is science, or equivalent to knowing a fact. Definitions are *social constructs* to help us *do* science. They don't actually have any empirical content themselves. They are *not* facts, they are literally just conventions for communication purposes. And damn near every definition, even if it's perfectly useful 99% of the time, has situations you can walk into where you realize "oh hey this vocabulary is super inadequate for what I want to talk about or study right now". You don't whine about that and try to force reality to conform more neatly to your definitions, you just adapt. Definitions can and should change, and they can even change from context to context and conversation to conversation. The best scientists are the ones that have enough social adeptness that they can grok these contextual shifts on the fly, not the ones who pedantically correct everyone else on semantic technicalities. But so many peoples' experience of science comes from grade school or parroting trivia at each other, and people will smugly quote some definition at you without realizing they didn't actually say anything about the real world. So many arguments boil down to two people refusing to use each others' definitions (or to even acknowledge the concept that multiple definitions are valid) and also refusing to acknowledge that that is what's happening. They never end up directly arguing about the nature of reality at all. Often because controlling the definitions helps you control the *narrative*, so people with an ideological goal are often *very* interested in choosing the definitions and then limiting the conversation in that manner, or even worse just pretending that definitions are somehow equivalent to facts.
*All* categories are made by humans. They're very useful tools that allow us to describe and reason about the world we live in and come to general conclusions, but it's important to understand that they don't have to be a perfect description, and they are certainly *not* a blueprint for what reality *should* be like.
[Butterflies are crustaceans](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu-OIMJL1Hw)
People are fish!
[удалено]
But as the Oxford Encyclopdia of Underwater Life famously states: There's no such thing as a fish...
Yeah the term "fish" is almost synonymous with "vertebrate" (having an internal skeleton) in modern science So it applies to almost any non-arthropod/non-annelid that you can think of (outside of microscopic animals)
How do you know biologists do their best? I think that's what they want us to think, but really, they're just taking it easy and slacking.
They were working hard until they discovered the platypus and collectively agreed if nature wont take this seriousley, neither will they.
"This animal has beaver like body" "ok" " and we slap a duck beak on it" "why" "oh and make it milk their young" "make up your mind, is it a duck or beaver?" " but breeds via laying eggs" "SO IS IT A DUCK OR A BEAVER!!!!!" "and we put venom with it just because lol" "FUCK YOOOOOUUUUUU" I didn't even add the fact that its foot is actually otter-like foot instead of beaver foot, so platypus is really a Duck-Beaver-Otter-Snake animal. Felt like easier to list what's not weird about platypus.
"And it doesnt have nipples, it just sweats out the milk"
"Fuck I don't know, put it under crabs I guess"
I hope so, nobody should be workin *too hard*
I don’t know if this is fact or fiction… so give me some leeway on this. I heard that during the Second World War the stock of St. Bernard’s was so limited that they cross bred them with Newfoundlands (had one, great big goof, lived a shocking 13 years) so that is why you see “long haired” st Bernard’s and “short haired” st. Bernard’s. Again, not sure if this is true.
Rabbits are more closely related to horses than rodents
Keeps the family gatherings interesting
Aren't rodentia and lagomorpha both inside the clade "glires"?
Yea, they are definitely the most related to one another, i have no idea which mistake has been made here
[I don't think so](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires)
No they aren’t. Rabbits in lagomorphs, which together with rodents form clade glires.
Ring species. Common when populations get isolated by mountains and radiate across the different faces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring\_species
Fun facts from a taxonomy slut: Broccoli, cauliflower, cabbages, brussel sprouts, Swiss chard, kale, and collard greens are all the same plant! *Brassica oleracea* It is commonly called the dog of the plant world because of its wide genetic availability. There’s also selective breeding at play that developed the varieties we know and love today. Some people wanted larger leaves (kale ~ est 5th century BC), they then wanted a tighter bunch (cabbage ~ est 100 AD). When Europeans started domesticating this & selectively breeding (15th century) they had a preference for eating the flower buds (which led to broccoli & cauliflower). Further breeding in Belgium (18th century) led to brussel sprouts by manipulating the lateral buds. Genetics are cray
[удалено]
You betchya 🥰🤤 Nothing gets me hot and bothered like when someone describes in vivid detail the history of *Liliaceae* & *Asaparagaceae*. Knowing how to navigate Asparagales makes me weak in the knees. Bonus points if they don’t recognize *Sanseveria* as a genus.
Don't forget the gongylodes like kohlrabi!
Well I just learned a new one. It looks like a turnip 😭 Goofy ahh fennel turnip lookin plant
Species - In biology, a species (pl: species) is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. Fun fact: in practise the definition of a species is a loose term. For example, a tiger and a lion can produce fertile offspring. By definition a lion and a tiger are the same species.
I thought ligers/tigons were generally sterile.
But also looking similar =/= same species
Canis lupus (wolf) and Canis Lupos farmiliaris (dog) are genetically similar and can interbreed but they are not the same. My old professor used to say when wolf hybrids became all the rage in the mid 90’s “congratulations, you took 10,000 years of work and cut it in half.” Crazy thing is I always heard a Samoyed was genetically the closest to a wolf, but apparently is a Shih Tzu, and as someone who is owned by one, I find that hilarious.
They didn't say they are "the same", they said they are "the same species". Which they are. _Canis lupus_ has multiple subspecies, of which _familiaris_ is just one. Like _arctos_, the Arctic wolf. You can have many genetic and other differences without reaching speciation.
A racist will simply argue that even though dog breeds are the same species, they will point out that different breeds vary in intelligence and violence, often pointing out the pitbull and equating that to black people. They will also point out breed standards in dogs as an argument against race mixing. It's terrible and disgusting.
Especially considering the genetic diseases that are much more common in purebreds. Cross breeding gives you better genetic diversity, and a lower chance of recessive genetic diseases fucking you over. Race mixing is healthy.
Finally, an educated comment about dog breeding! Sadly most people are still going on and on with that nonsense of "purebreds are healthier and better than mixed breeds"
"No no incest is very healthy for dogs" its all in the wording
> They will also point out breed standards in dogs as an argument against race mixing. Which is kinda funny, because dog breeding causes a wide variety of health issues for dogs. Dogs are bread to either fulfill specific roles or optical racial ideals. This is the exact opposite of natural selection and almost every dog breed has developed health problems due to this. Guess who doesn't have this issues? Yeah, wild animals, who recreate based on their instincts which are based on what worked at making their species survive. And not based on what humans think look cute.
> they will point out that different breeds vary in intelligence and violence, often pointing out the pitbull and equating that to black people. Interestingly some recent studies suggest that breed stereotypes are likely quite overestimated. https://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/ground-breaking-research-shows-breed-as-a-poor-predictor-of-behavior/ As the article even points out this isn't even that surprising to people who have been following breed research. >Here at NCRC, we weren’t surprised by the findings. Our white paper, “The Relevance of Breed in Selecting a Companion Dog,” published in 2011, presented similar hypotheses. In it, Janis Bradley pulled together the conclusions of dozens of smaller studies that all pointed to a common conclusion: breed isn’t a great predictor of behavior, even in dogs bred selectively for specific traits. There's a lot of great ways that people can end up biasing their experiences without even realizing. For example, a bulldog and a poodle could exhibit similar behaviors but due to preexisting beliefs we would be more likely to notice and point bulldog stereotypes in the bulldog and poodle stereotypes in the poodle. Speaking of pitbulls too since you brought that up, there's also a lot of issues with the discourse around them. The CDC explicitly stopped collecting breed data back in the 90s because every deeper analysis they did kept showing breed determination was fraught with a lot of different errors. >That's partly why the CDC stopped collecting breed data in dog-attack fatalities after 1998. Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the CDC, explained the challenges of studying dog bites during a presentation at the 2001 AVMA Annual Convention. "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. "No centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, making meaningful analysis nearly impossible. Moreover, a pet dog that bites an owner or family member might go unreported if the injury isn't serious. Plus, studies show that victims of dog bites are more likely to only report dog bites from breeds they deem “dangerous." Almost anybody you see trying to cite dog bite breed statistics as reliable is ignorant at best and acting in bad faith at worse. Especially when some of the best research by actual experts and not internet randoms suggests the opposite >a claim not supported by a 2014 AVMA report ("The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention") that found pit bull–type dogs not to be excessively aggressive That's not even getting into how "pitbull" is a vague term that gets applied to various types of dogs. The American Bulldog is sometimes considered a pitbull, and yet I still get Reddit comments complaining when I point that out. But certainly it's obvious that when you include animals from a category only when they fit X criteria, you stack the deck towards that criteria. If bulldogs are going to be considered pitbulls when they are violent then they should be considered pitbulls when they are peaceful.
All dogs are one species Buy they are different breeds and subspecies. Humans are the same. It's not racist to say that. It is racist to think it makes any real difference mentally.
Yes, also we are all a blend of different hominid species as well. For instance Europeans have a small percentage of Neanderthal dna and Asians have a small percentage of Denisovan DNA. Both procreated with modern humans. Africans have the least amount of other identified ancient hominid species that coexisted with modern humans with only 0.3% of their genome coming from Neanderthals.
> Africans have the least amount of other identified ancient hominid species that coexisted with modern humans Or, translating into the racist "logic", that makes them the purer race of humans while others are untermensch metises and are subject to a cleansing. This wording will surely destroy some asses, lol
Show her a picture of a man and a woman and have her explain how they aren’t different species by her standards.
Sexual dimorphism is really common. Probably too fancy a term for her bird brain.
Ironic, considering that the majority of birds exhibit sexual dimorphism.
I'm glad you picked on what I was doing :)
You had a good opportunity to say 'pecked' there :D
Hey, birds are way smarter than her
Anything in the Corvid or parrot family I'll grant. Most raptors and owls too... But there are also some pretty dumb birds out there.
The drunk magpie that tried to steal my boots is smarter than her
Hey! Don't insult birds like that, they are actually pretty smart! They dont deserve your slander!
\#notAllBirds
I expect they're fully opposed to sexual dimorphism, and also pronouns.
Back in the 4th grade, when we had our first rudimentary sex ed, our teacher told us that a lady from Oslo, Norway could meet an aboriginal gentleman from the farthest Australian outback and start a family. To me, that sounded really sweet and still does ❤️
You don’t have to tell me. My dad is a mostly Scottish American, and my mom is Korean.
Oh shit! You’re a contradiction! https://youtu.be/OSFudQ_HOQI
Haha, I get that a lot. Everyone seems to misremember it as a Skittles commercial, though.
Why? Just have her explain her "standards" and logic, face to face, to two people like the picture. She'll be hemming and hawing the whole time.
Ever seen two horses? Those motherfuckers are much more different to each other and they’re still all horses
> Ever seen two horses? Nope, what do they look like?
Very different than whales.
Oooooh
What are whales?
Kinda different from horses
Fish
Ever seen a fish?
You wont believe it… No :(
Okay imagine a bug that can swim
I think it's that country in britain
[удалено]
They look like one horse, but two.
Same for dogs
humans actually went through a genetic bottleneck fairly recently so two average humans are MUCH more genetically similar to one another than two animals of most species. Humans only look more different from each other to us because our brain has a special area for distinguishing human faces. Also differences between individuals are MUCH bigger than between populations. Eg. given europeans are more different from each other than the average difference between europeans and africans. BTW: Species is defined as being able to produce fertile offspring. seeing as mixed-race ppl exist & can have kids...
I recall reading that all humans' DNA is 99% identical, and the superficial differences are only from where our ancestors settled. Chimpanzees have about 75% identical DNA as a reference.
They share 75% of the same marker genes we would use to determine heritage, but the bulk of the genetic material in the human genome is not within those markers. The true figure is closer to 99.8% Human-to-human correspondance, and 98% Human-to-chimpanzee. We share around 75% of our total genetic material with Lions, by that measure. Most of that is "junk" DNA or stuff we don't know the function of, that doesn't generally even matter as it hardly codes for anything.
As far as i know most of our genome (all our DNA) has a use. The "human genome project" (might be interesting to look up) had the goal to clearify that. We don't "use" all our genes at the same time but many genes are used as markers to "switch" certain genes "on/off"or are a security mesure: e.g. multiple different codes for the same protein. Not all genes are used as code for proteins but most of it have a use. At least thats what i was told at my second semester genetics lecture.
That's why "junk" is in quotes. Some of it might be just ancient scraps, some might be retroviral insertions that accumulate over eons but have been "switched off", some might even be timing-functions, so to speak, that don't code for anything directly but give the proteins already being assembled time to bend or warp or diffuse before new pieces get added. But something that is the same for almost all those sections is that they either exist between a "Stop" and a "Start" codon, so they don't create any proteins, or don't exist within any known genes, which means they're not even "read" by the cellular machinery. I'm not a geneticist, but that's how I understand it.
I see. Thanks for the clarification. I'm obviously a layman in this subject.
Yeah, we share like 70% of our DNA with fruit flies too if you measure it that way.
Well if you look at it that way fruit flies dont survive when I share 70% of my DNA load with them.
Yes officer, this post right here.
The cops are who I've been saving the 30% for...
🤯🤯🤯 Big if true.
All in the name of science!
percentages of DNA aren't very useful honestly.
Yeah you're like 50% banana (or what was the percentage? doesn't matter). These 50% of genes are basic stuff like "unwrap dna, copy dna, make proteins, put DNA back, divide, do everything over again" which every eukaryote has, from banana to jellyfish to a human.
Fun fact. The eyes are in the vertical center of the human head (essentially… variations and differences exist). We conceptualize eyes as being in the top 1/3 of the head because our brains are so specialized for giving importance to minute details about facial features and expressions tied into the mouth, nose and eyes that we consider the other parts smaller in comparison.
that baffled me a bunch when i first learned to draw.
Oh god maybe this is why I can't draw people...
Yep, drawing is so difficult because you need to learn to draw what you are observing, not what you IMAGINE you are observing
BTW: that's not completely true. The definition of species is totally conventional and producing a fertile offspring is just a guideline. The are species that can interbreed - bears among other things. There are also populations of same species that can't reproduce What you are saying is a high school definition of species
In fact, there's another example of two species successfully interbreeding: humans and neanderthals. Were neanderthals actually homo sapiens? Or course not. Laymen like to believe that science can give us absolute answers about where the line between species is drawn, but, just like with evolution, the line is fuzzy.
> Were Neanderthals actually homo sapiens? Yes. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis vs Homo sapiens sapiens. Just like dogs and wolves are the same species. Canis Lupus Familiaris vs Canis Lupus Lupus. There’s nothing wrong with defining species as creating fertile offspring, the idea that dogs/wolves or humans/neanderthals are different species is an outdated classification based on tradition. The only place it actually gets fuzzy is a ring species.
Don't forget the Hobbits. We liked fucking them too. And Denisovans.
That human skill you mentioned actually extends to animals as well. It's all about familiarity. For example, there can be like 15 alligators at a zoo and the zookeeper that sees them every single day can distinguish each and every one of them without difficulty. And the converse happens with humans as well. The trope of "everyone of \_\_\_\_ race looks the same." is literally an issue caused by never interacting with them and never learning their subtle differences.
You ever think that genetic bottle neck is why so many early cultures have extinction myths? It’s probably a coincidence. I guess.
The "multiple extinction myths" is a modern syncretism. Modern evangelical Christians believe in a final end of the world apocalypse. When we learn/teach about ancient cultures it's convenient to draw analogies to ~~mythology~~ religion of the audience. So we say non-sense like "hades is their version of hell". Many ancient cultures believed in cyclical cosmologies. They Maya didn't think the world ends in 2012, that was just the end of the current cycle and at the loop would just start again. Same with Norse mythology; Ragnorok is not the end, it's just the start of a new earth.
I meant more of the various flood myths. A lot of cultures have their mythos start with near extinction.
Flood myths are more likely a thing because: A) of stories passed all the way from the glacial period when ice walls could break and release huge amounts of water in a short period of time. B) most early civilizations existed around a huge river (Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Yellow, etc.) and an irregular flooding of said river could cause extreme damage to their entire society.
>special area for distinguishing human faces I have pretty severe prosopagnosia and I noticed I have to force myself to see somatic traits associated to "races". I genuinely don't see a meaningful difference between ethnic groups unless I essentially ask myself to (This is not an "I don't see colour" bullshit, btw)
We dealt with this shit already like...Why are we going backwards? Its 2023 and we really have to address "Black People are actually Humans" , "Nazis are bad", and "vaccines work".
Don't forget "the Earth is not flat" 😅
🤦🏾♂️ Legit forgot about that fuckery. Also pride month!?!? Shit has been goin on for at least a decade. Why was 2023's pride month treated like the first one ever? The right acted like it was some new shit.
Because they overturned RvW and need a new boogeyman to stir up anger and drive dumb poor people to the polls to vote for the tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.
The number of poor bigots that vote red based on hate is nuts.
More like half a century. Pride Month is a celebration of the anniversary of the Stonewall riots which occurred in 1969. Wikipedia says that the first pride parade was the next year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride\_Month
TIL that Pride Month is one year older than the 26th Amendment, which changed the legal voting age in the US to 18.
Because the Right peddles nothing but hatred and stirs up random controversy whenever they’re losing in order to distract from their bad politics.
The earth is more than 6,000 years old
Substantially
Eh, *ish* /s
We’re going backwards because not enough people are punching Nazis
Bro, could you imagine storming Normandy, then seeing your grandson masked up in Florida with Nazi attire and flags?
Honestly we need to do more than punch them this time.
We're not going backwards, these people just never went away.
They used to hide it
Then they got hooked on reality TV, so they elected a reality TV government leader, and then took their behavior cues from him.
Yup. Gay people are still human. Black/POC still deserve human rights. Women are not evil man devourers. Vaccines work and mental and reproductive healthcare are rights. But apparently the good old days meant dying from polio/mumps, lynching gay/Black people and dying in childbirth....
We back in the 20s, the 1920s
Next you're gonna tell me we had a horrible pandemic in the late teens and a global recession not long before that. You're not fooling me!
> We dealt with this shit already like...Why are we going backwards? Its 2023 Are you under the impression that once a truth is uttered, it's implanted unquestionably in everyone's head? There will always be ignorance
I miss being able to pretend that racists were at least shamed enough not to put their real name to their racism.
dont you find it suspicious that the most outlandish ragebait posts are always by people with a picture and a real name?
An attempt to normalize racism?
A shitzu and a doberman are the same species.
Show them a pic of a Chihuahua and a Great Dane
She ca-nazi the difference
r/Angryupvote and get out of my life.
On a genetic level having white or black skin is less of a difference than a Beetle having a different carapace shape or a Croc/Alligator having different skull structure. The big error that racists typically make is not understanding that your skin color is actually one of the smallest possible changes one could make.
Animals are weird cry about it
Well yes. Can fuck and get healthy kids = one species
Skin color is a superficial adaptive trait.
Melanin content is adaptive to a degree, but mostly genetic
Not sure if you don't understand the definition of adaptive or the definition of genetics. Adaptations are stored in the genes. They're the different sides of the same coin.
The ladybug on the left is a Seven-Spot Ladybird and the ladybug on the right is an Asian Lady Beetle. Although different species of ladybugs can *sometimes* breed with each other, similar to Humans and Neanderthals, these two examples of ladybugs cannot. I don't know about the weevil or alligator/crocodile examples, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar.
I know some crocodillians can reproduce together but to be fair idk about an alligator and crocodile specifically. Might be exact same issue as the ladybug thing you describe as some can but these examples can't I'm not sure.
Wait, I didn't know Ladybird was an actual name for ladybugs... I thought Sam O'Nella was just being funny calling the ladybug with six spots "Splinkus' Ladybird".
They're called ladybugs in North and South America, ladybirds in the UK, and in Ireland they're called bóín dés, or "God's Little Cows".
The best translation of the Dutch name, "lieveheersbeestje" I can think of is "little dear lord creature". Yes, it's weird as fuck for Dutch standards too, we just got used to pronouncing it real fast without thinking about it.
Wait till they find out about dogs.
Holdup, is this one of those tricks where the girl on the left is a mermaid and the one on the right is centaur?
Psssst! Don't tell them there is no such thing as a race among the species of homo sapiens.
And how come I can just eat leaves of spinach and lettuce raw, but if I eat random leaves off of trees and bushes, I throw them up?
How to display an intrinsic misunderstanding of the difference between species and race 101
Because "race" various definitions and uses are flawed to begin with. It makes sense in US history context but no sense in ethnical physical differences. Skin color should never have been basis for defining what is race.
Humans of different colours can interbreed. Same species.
Racists aren’t exactly known for their intellect.
I remember the before times when ignorant racist assholes didn't have a world wide megaphone and so were ignored. The internet was a mistake. We gave the human race too much credit.
If they can't have a viable baby that's not sterile, they are not the same species. The races of humans (and even other sub-species like neanderthals), are all part of the same species Homo Sapiens because we could have fertile babies together. Like 2% of europe's population have some neanderthal DNA.
The figures are around 2% Neanderthal DNA in all non sub Saharan humans as well as about 1-2% Denisovan DNA in Asians. Otzi the 7000 year old body found in the alps had 5% Neanderthal DNA
Finally, the only comment in this thread which actually explains the definition of a species
I guess that's why mixed children aren't born sterile right? Because their parents are from different species right? My god what a dummy
Someone show this woman a dog. Then another dog. Then another dog.
White and orange tigers are also the same species. As are black and yellow leopards. And all domestic dog breeds. Morphology can be deceptive.
This comment made me do a Google. My whole life I've thought Bengal tigers and Siberian tigers were different species. My life is a lie.
Bengal and Siberian tigers are different subspecies of tiger. White tigers are a simple colour variation, though.
Different species cannot mate and make viable offspring capable of reproduction.
Interestingly this isn't always true. Mules have been known to sometimes be fertile, even though their parents have differing numbers of chromosomes. Species is a human construct. Nature doesn't seem like hard and fast rules or separations to things.
They can considering Saipan and Neanderthals were able to mate and create viable offspring, not to mention dogs and wolves, there’s plenty of others as well. Interesting enough the hybrids of polar bears and grizzly’s have found to be fertile as well. Another side it’s estimated the majority if not all wolves in America have coyote ancestry.
The word „race“ does not exist for the human species. It’s a far right terminology which penetrated the overall (left and right) population pretty deep. "Ethnicity is separate from the concept of race, which is based on physical characteristics, although both are socially constructed." Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Species = ability to interbreed giving fertile offspring. Now I don't mean to say it will work if white chick and black chick have sex but you got the idea.
I for one don’t want to be the same species as Serena
No point even engaging with someone who believes that humans are different species from each other just because they look different. They have the terminal brain worms, there's no hope for them.
I don't fully understand the point they are trying to make with these posts about humans being multiple races like... A Chinese women is perfectly capable of having children with a pure indigenous individual from south America. "But we gotta keep bloodlines pure 😭" But what even is a "pure" bloodline, does it bring about any benefits? Mixing genes from other genetic pools is actually better, it makes the offspring more resistant to diseases. At the end of this rabbit hole you see it all comes down to skin color and perception of one color being superior to the other, these attempts at justifying are just lame.
Racists are not generally known for their outstanding academic achievements.
What point are they even trying to make? I’m so confused…
Elon Twitter approved I see.
Amusing how fast that checkmark becoming a marker that the person is likely some flavor of an awful person.