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
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.
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.
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The “species” classification system is simplistic, somewhat outdated, and primarily basic model suited for children.
I’m no biologist. It’s very possible it’s an incomplete definition, and I don’t claim it to be a perfect one.
I guess if we apply my definition to mules, each mule would be a different species lol.
The horses one is a non-issue though. It doesn’t matter that they can create offspring of different species. Since 2 horses can potentially create a horse, then the horses are of the same species.
And yes, my definition works only for sexual reproduction, since as seen by this article, asexual reproduction can get very complicated.
I wouldn’t say it’s outdated and mainly for children. Just like Newtonian physics are very useful if we use it correctly. Having simple models that work in the situations we encounter most is useful even for adults.
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.
If everyone just kept producing their own species we wouldn’t have goddamn evolution.
0/10 headline. Not scientific.
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
Although you’re not wrong, you might want to have a look at punctuated equilibrium. Sometimes evolution goes brrr
I think anybody with a reasonable level of understanding of biology realizes that categorization by “species” is not at all precise or objective.
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.
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.
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.
The “species” classification system is simplistic, somewhat outdated, and primarily basic model suited for children.
I’m no biologist. It’s very possible it’s an incomplete definition, and I don’t claim it to be a perfect one.
I guess if we apply my definition to mules, each mule would be a different species lol.
The horses one is a non-issue though. It doesn’t matter that they can create offspring of different species. Since 2 horses can potentially create a horse, then the horses are of the same species.
And yes, my definition works only for sexual reproduction, since as seen by this article, asexual reproduction can get very complicated.
I wouldn’t say it’s outdated and mainly for children. Just like Newtonian physics are very useful if we use it correctly. Having simple models that work in the situations we encounter most is useful even for adults.
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.
Yes, I understand small changes lead to evolution. I condensed fact to a short, somewhat innacurate blurb, kinda like this headline.
At least I didn’t sensationalize it by saying it “breaks the rules of headlines.”
Pretty sure OP was joking.
Thanks for getting it.
This is why I can’t playfully exaggerate anymore.