It seems "almost unimaginable," researchers say.
  • Ceedoestrees@lemmy.worldEnglish
    812·
    5 hours ago

    If everyone just kept producing their own species we wouldn’t have goddamn evolution.

    0/10 headline. Not scientific.

    • glimse@lemmy.worldEnglish
      131·
      3 hours ago

      That’s not how evolution works. Tiny changes in your offspring doesn’t create a totally different species in one generation like that, it takes a long time.

      This discovery goes against our understanding of biology and the headline is fine

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        19 minutes ago

        This discovery goes against our my understanding of biology and the headline is fine

        I think anybody with a reasonable level of understanding of biology realizes that categorization by “species” is not at all precise or objective.

      • witty_username@feddit.nlEnglish
        3·
        3 hours ago

        Although you’re not wrong, you might want to have a look at punctuated equilibrium. Sometimes evolution goes brrr

      • billwashere@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        3 hours ago

        Maybe this is more of philosophical question, but at some point the line to an organism being a new species is crossed and the parent would be a different species than the offspring right? Or is that line a lot fuzzier? I understand “new species” is very much a human nomenclature and construct so this might just be a moot point.

        • calcopiritus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 hours ago

          Idk the biological definition for species.

          In my personal one, 2 beings are of the same species if they can reproduce and have their offspring be of the same species. Which means the offspring could theoretically breed with its parents.

          Under this definition, a being can belong to multiple species.

          So if A is the parent of B, and B the parent of C (because of evolution):

          If B is similar enough to both A and C. But C is different enough from A, then B would be of both species A and C, like an intermediate between both species.

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            9 minutes ago

            2 beings are of the same species if they can reproduce and have their offspring be of the same species.

            This is a very incomplete definition though. For example is every mule a different species or not a species at all? Isn’t a horse also capable of producing children of different “species”? I understand that mules might not be considered a species because they’re sterile. But this ant isn’t reproducing sexually either.

            She was essentially cloning males from another species.

            The “species” classification system is simplistic, somewhat outdated, and primarily basic model suited for children.

          • thebestaquaman@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 hours ago

            I’m pretty sure “can produce fertile offspring with each other” is a pretty common definition of a species. At least I’ve seen it before.

            “Fertile” is key here, because while donkeys and horses can produce offspring (mules), mules are infertile, so donkeys and horses are different species.

            So pretty much yes: While no single generation will differ enough from its parents to be a new species (at least very rarely), once you move a couple thousand generations, you can have a new species. However the point at which the new species “came into being” is very fuzzy.