Like, I already linked and quoted the part from Brittanica about how we don't have to just go off morphology to differentiate like we did when people decided those were different species.

I really don't understand the confusion here.

Every argument for why that shouldn't be the sole line, circles back to "that's not how we always did it".

Do you understand that and are just arguing for the consistency of it despite it not logically making sense?

Cuz that's just an opinion, I'm not gonna be able to change that

Logic tho, that's just what it is. And that's kind of the hocky pocky of science.

[–] Mandarbmax@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I say this with respect: your response looks as though you did not fully consider the impact of ring species as I had mentioned.

Please take a closer look and get back to me.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which interbreeds with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two end populations in the series which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between linked neighbouring populations.[1]

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

End points have differentiated enough to speciate, what's in between is a "sub-species" of both.

I don't understand how you think that's different then the normal process, it's literally the normal process when there isn't a clear geographical divide...

[–] Mandarbmax@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Your position is that something can be two species at once? I suppose that is one way to solve the problem of where to draw the line for speciation!

Completely out of line with the perspective of modern biology but fascinating and internally coherent none the less! It will take me years to fully digest this perspective. Thank you.

Saying that something can be two species at once is none the less not a compelling argument against the concept of a species being a social construct, as your perspective clashes with others'.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Your position is that something can be two species at once?

No, I'm saying two species can share a mutual subspecies...

End points have differentiated enough to speciate, what’s in between is a “sub-species” of both

I'm not sure if it makes more sense one way or the other, but obviously that's a fundamental point you'd need to get before we move further.

But you keep down voting and being weirdly argumentative about this.

You do realize I gain absolutely nothing from helping you understand, right?

If you act like this, most people are just going to stop trying to teach you stuff

[–] Mandarbmax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

So what species is the sub species then under your framework?