site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3188 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 9, 2022

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I know this theory will sound retarded, but I don’t think Bonobos are a real species. Is there any biological basis to their classification? Apparently they can freely interbreed with Chimps, and I believe their status as a separate famously pacifist, feminist, homosexual species is propaganda

Where you draw the line at what is the same species or is not the same species is rather arbitrary. One definition is that two animals are not the same species if they cannot have fertile offspring; but there are lots of animals like that that we happily classify as different species, like lions and tigers. I think the more commonly used definition is that two animals are different species if they do not mate in the wild. And as I understand it, bonobos and chimpanzees very rarely mate in the wild.

Indeed. By the nature of evolution, closely related species blur at the edges. Interfertility remains the main criterion to distinguish species, but it's neither binary (there are many degrees of non-interfertility: won't mate > will mate but not conceive > will conceive but not carry to term > hybrids are born malformed > hybrids are healthy but sterile > hybrids are fertile but have lower fitness) nor transitive (see ring species, where A is interfertile with B and B with C, but C is not interfertile with A). Besides, most species are named on morphological or genetical grounds, because checking interfertility with their relatives would be impractical. And of course many species are exclusively asexual and do not mate at all -- just look at the mess that is bacterial taxonomy, where populations of a single "species" can be more genetically diverse than mammals and fish.

So dogs wolves and coyotes are so the same thing then?

https://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/courses/spring2019/biol/biol312section2/content/are-coyotes-wolves-and-dogs-really-separate-species

Apparently wolves and coyotes very rarely mate in the wild, so they would be different species.

The infamous comparison was between red wolves and coyotes, and red wolves evolved from a mix of coyotes and grey wolves.

If we talk grey wolves and coyotes, I think the differences are larger, but don't know how much larger.

Whether they can interbreed isn't the whole deal. You can breed horses and donkeys, after all.

There's a significant genetic difference but I'm not 100% sure on that. Like way bigger than between human races.

The divergence between the two species is really rather old it seems.

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aag2602

Wikipedia says they’ve got 0.4% genetic difference from vanilla chimps. Not sure if thats a lot or how it compares to their % difference from humans.

I think the separate geographical regions (due to a huge river) helps them get classed as separate?

It also is worth mentioning that the species was originally separated based on skull information, before genetic studies and decades before the social/sexual research.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats