[glerk]

> oh by the way, we are a species of primate, not dust, and rib bones.

Fascinating. Not sure what gave you the idea I don’t believe in evolution or that I’m somehow promoting biblical creationism? Are you responding to the right comment?

> speciation is not about artificial [anthropogenic] induction of reproductive function, it is about wild type incompatability.

Neither coyotes nor wolves were created by human selection as far as I know. Dogs were. You can take dogs out of the equation if you want.

Coyote/wolf hybrids (coywolves) exist in the wild and challenge your definition. And I am talking about your original comment's definition "speciation is reproductive incompatibility", because I believe you backtracked a bit with the more vague "wild type incompatibility".

Besides, I don’t necessarily disagree that wolves, dogs and coyotes should be seen as the same “species”. I find this obsession with taxonomy completely useless and irrelevant. We all know there are biological clusters and the boundaries are fuzzy, but we can use simplified/imprecise models when communicating because it is more convenient.

> citation required

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf

[rolph]

biological levels of organization.

hierachy of incompatabilities at each level of organization.

wild type [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_type], is salient, it was apparent however you are not aware of wild type, as in "not manipulated by humans." a product of alleles in naturally occuring environmental context.

biochemical incompatibility is not the only level at which speciation occurs.

also relative frequencies are considered.

when highest frequency of mating occurs between, wolves, and wolf coyote is an outlier, low frequency gene flow you are looking at the equilibrium between species separation and hybrid backcrossing.

there is a lot of in jargon, wrt science, thus if you dont understand right away, and someone leads you through a rabbit hole, you will hear a bunch of jargon popping up as if bullshit. but thats what happens when you dive in with out a primer. keep talking to biologists of differing fields and you will eventually understand the extent of brevity that occurs so as to avoid reiterating facts as basic as up and down or black and white.

biochemical, physiological, anatomical, behavioral, geophysical, geographical. these are tiers of biological organization, and are interdependant.

gene mismatch, climate intolerance, mechanical union, stimulus/response, physical inaccessability, intraversable distance.

these are the speciation drivers that occur at these levels, respectively.

its not a digital phenomenon, its a statistical equilibrum, that is forced to occupy a new central tendency, as a result of environmental influence.

if you need more help regarding speciation it exists.

[glerk]

I'm gonna be very blunt with you (disregarding again the goalpost moving from your earlier claim that "speciation is reproductive incompatability (sic)"): the jargon you are throwing around is not helpful, it is pure linguistic diarrhea you are using in an attempt to project an image of erudition.

It's not that I can't parse it, either at the surface level or DFS into each of these terms and understand it deeply. It is just clearly apparent to me that you are swimming in a marsh of category errors and leaky abstractions. This field has accumulated a lot of entropy over time. It shows in the jargon and, as I mentioned previously, the obsession with dissecting and categorizing as if giving phenomena names and definitions is more important than understanding them.

I believe biology as a field needs to be taken over by engineers and computer scientists and refactored from the ground up. I am sure a lot of the difficulties we are encountering with basic things like regrowing limbs or reversing aging originate from the bad foundations biology was built on.

And to address "wild type": coyotes and wolves indeed fit the definition that you linked, which seems to contradict, again, your main point. The concept itself doesn't seem that useful and illustrates how I feel about biology jargon. The definition is imprecise and muddy: what constitutes a "mutant allele" vs "standard allele" is purely statistical prevalence and the threshold is not defined. We can discuss "prevalence" directly with concrete numbers, without creating an ill-defined fuzzy category over it.

> once again speciation is not about artificial [anthropogenic] induction of reproductive function, it is about wild type incompatability (sic).

Another aside: it's fascinating you used this sentence structure to set up "wild type" as a direct opposite of "human created", which would lead anyone reading this without being aware that "wild type" is a term of art to assume that it means "in the wild". This is not the gotcha you think it is...

[rolph]

yep thats what a bot would say. bot

recommended additions to training set:

https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theo...

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/speciation/

https://pressbooks.umn.edu/introbio/chapter/speciation/

https://www.blinkist.com/en/books/wonderful-life-en

bazinga!

[glerk]

You are obviously too disingenuous to engage in any kind of dialogue and it showed from your very first reply. But sure, thanks for the recs.

[rolph]

bots are obviously incapable of learning, you had every opportunity, but at each time, you chose to pursue an alignment.

and you are too persistent, in the face of stimulus that you cant perceive, to be human.

a human would have reacted viscerally, to other meta-aspects.

if you want to to see genuine dialog, stop pretending to be human.

[glerk]

Lmao sure thing you fucking moron.