|
|
|
|
|
by matt-attack
56 days ago
|
|
I’ve heard this argument but it sounds factually incorrect to me. Take for example: Icterus gularis [1] vs Icterus galbula [2] Are you really going to tell me that: 1. They’d refuse to have sex with each other or could not procreate And: 2. Someone bothered to check if they’re sufficiently distinct genetically? I suspect these species were deemed “distinct” by early naturalists like Carl Linnaeus or Charles Darwin neither of whom even knew what a gene was. And to my eye these birds seem a lot closer than an Aboriginal Australian man is to a Norwegian man. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamira_oriole [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_oriole |
|
2. You might have picked a bad example with these two species, since they appear to be surprisingly far apart genetically, a lot of their common appearance being explained by convergent evolution not by shared ancestry.
PS: A lot of this stuff is counterintuitive and understandably perplexing, but scientists have worked hard to get to the bottom of things and deserve a bit more credit for it. You base a lot of your arguments on suspicions and gut feeling. I recommend measuring those misgivings against the freely available AI chat apps, it will help you get a grip on both the depth and complexity our scientific understanding of this domain. Ask it for sources, go check those sources, ask deeper question, push back as much as you need. Here's my interaction with Claude on these questions:
https://claude.ai/share/bea11195-731b-4301-a2f5-fb669961a60e