Thread 5066273

new 'mal is out

>>5066273 (OP)
I look like this and do this.

>>5066273 (OP)
We’re never gonna discover cool shit ever again like mokole-mbembe and it’s just pallet-swap rats and bacteria from here on out isn’t it?

>>5066313
>mokole-mbembe
That isn't real and never existed anon.

>>5066273 (OP)
I give it a B+. It seems like a cool beast

>>5066317
that's not what he was saying, illiterate anon.

>>5066313
>and it’s just pallet-swap rats and bacteria from here on out isn’t it?
Even those are dying out

>>5066317
I think he meant like prehistoric fauna in general despite mokole not being real

>>5066273 (OP)
Cute little nigga

>>5066358
I meant animals unknown to science or previously thought extinct yeah any of the above. Coelocanths, Bigfoot, giant ground sloths, some random shit we’ve never seen, etc.
IIRC wasn’t a huge species of never before identified whale documented recently? Like a beaked whale or some mini blue whale or something?

>>5066273 (OP)
MUNDO COOLO

Neat. How long until it becomes extinct? I'm betting 50 years.

>>5066408
why do fags say shit like this? Do you brainlets seriously think the world is gonna conflagrate out of the hubris of man's what... logging? Driving vehicles that use one mechanism of fossil fuel extraction over another? Not kowtowing enough to pedophiles in government? Just shut the fuck up already, goddamn.

>>5066374
>IIRC wasn’t a huge species of never before identified whale documented recently? Like a beaked whale or some mini blue whale or something?
Yeah but that’s just a case of it looking so similar to already known and more common whales that when people do see them they don’t even notice they’re different. It’s only when someone gets a DNA sample that anyone realises they’re new

>>5066492
>It’s only when someone gets a DNA sample that anyone realises they’re new
Which is even more dubious because different species used to mean you couldn't interbreed. Now it can just mean anything you want it to mean.
>>5066374
>Coelocanths, Bigfoot,
Bigfoot never existed either you idiot.
>I meant
You're just stupid. That's it.

>>5066530
nigger what the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension? He's saying
>We're never going to discover anything cool anymore huh?
and because he says one of the words your programming deems unacceptable you jump on his hog as if he's saying literally anything other than
>We're never gonna discover anything cool anymore huh?
like goddamn you're fucking stupid

>>5066546
Bigfoot and mokole-mbembe never existed and never will be discovered Mr.Ghetto Ebonics. You're just low IQ.
Back to smoking weed you go.

>>5066550
>Bigfoot and mokole-mbembe never existed and never will be discovered
This is precisely what he is saying and precisely what he is complaining about. I don't think English is your first language.

>>5066530
>Which is even more dubious because different species used to mean you couldn't interbreed
And we pretty quickly figured out that was a terrible definition because of the discovery of ring species and a little thing called evolutionary biology

>>5066557
>This is precisely what he is saying
No, you weren't saying that ghetto anon.
>I don't think English is your first language.
Said the ghetto Ebonics anon.

>>5066559
>ring species
That literally doesn't change anything lol.
Do you even know what a ring species is?
How stupid do you have to be to think saying "evolutionary biology" magically proves anything?
You can't give a single valid reason for your opinions can you?

>>5066565
>Do you even know what a ring species is?
Do you? I’m not sure how you can say that and imply that ring species have nothing to do with reproductive compatibility being largely discarded as a measure of species. Do a little research before talking about these things

>>5066582
Ok, so you have no explanation as to how "ring species" and "evolutionary biology" magically invalidates the original meaning of species.
You're just going to do a pseudointellectual bluff forever right?
Haha, what a joke.

>>5066550
this has got to be trolling

>>5066374
>I meant animals unknown to science or previously thought extinct yeah any of the above. Coelocanths, Bigfoot

>>5066618
Is that "trolling"?

Anon thinks that Bigfoot is just as real as Coelacanths.

How much longer are you going to samefag idiot anon?

>>5066273 (OP)
>professional scientists whose only job it is to find new animals took 4.3 billion years to find this species
>people still doubt sasquatch is out there waiting to be found

>>5066530
You’re a demented retard.

Solid 8/10.

>>5066317
>"That isn't real"
>"Never existed"
>He doesn't know

>>5066598
>Ok, so you have no explanation as to how "ring species" and "evolutionary biology" magically invalidates the original meaning of species
I don’t think you know what a ring species is so I’ll make it simple for you
>population A can breed with population B, same species
>population B can breed with population C, same species
>population C can breed with population D, same species
>population D cannot breed with population A, so how are they all the same species?
The classic example of this is species surrounding a mountain range where each overlaps two species on either side of its distribution. They can each interbreed with the species before them so must be slightly different types of the same species in a continuous population, but by the time you circle around the mountain the differences have stacked up enough to prevent breeding between the first and last populations. Hope this helps

>>5066598
you could’ve just read the wikipedia page on ring species btw. Pay more attention in biology class next time, you might actually learn something
>Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem for those seeking to divide the living world into discrete species. All that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations; if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species. The problem is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it interbreeds with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that species boundaries arise gradually and often exist on a continuum

>>5066530
>>5066598
>maintains fertility in your path
species conceptfags BTFO once again

>>5066642
Pretty sure I used to work with the guy on the right

>>5066757
>crickets
Yeah that sounds about right

>>5066374
There have been almost no truly new large animals discovered in the last century. Nearly all new large animals are just recognised animals that have been split into multiple species

>>5067171
Saola (might be extinct already tho lol)? Giant squid?

>>5066313
It's an opossum, not a rodent you retard. Lots of small animals are cool if you look into them more. You'd probably think a treeshrew is "just a rodent" as well even though they're close relatives of primates.

>>5066640
It was discovered in Peru's cloud forest.
Isn't that one of the most studied places in the entire world? If a new critter is popping up there, they could be anywhere.

>>5067293
>Saola
That’s the only one I can think of
>Giant squid?
We've known about them for ages. They’re not as new or mysterious as people say

>>5066530
>Now it can just mean anything you want it to mean
To be fair, I used to think that some of the shit like "THIS GENERIC SILVER MINNOW HAS AN EXTRA ANAL FIN RAY, THIS MEANS IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES FROM THIS OTHER VISUALLY IDENTICAL GENERIC SILVER MINNOW, BTW IT ALSO LIVES IN A SINGLE CREEK SO ITS ENDANGERED" was completely retarded until I heard that researchers do it on purpose to game the system and protect land from development.

>>5067294
>taxonomic autism
If it looks like a rat it is a rat

>>5066273 (OP)
What is it? Looks creepy. Little monkey hands.

>>5067497
it's a mouse-opossum

>>5066273 (OP)
Probably considering sasquatch are already discovered but not "accepted" whatever that means

>>5066273 (OP)
So what's the lore on this thing? Was it a cryptid at some point, or is it totally new to everyone?

>>5068836
if it's been found, it's not a cryptid. Cryptids are just schizo fantasies.

>>5066642
You are anon. That isn't Bigfoot.
Bigfoot is the Patterson–Gimlin film.
So a man in a gorilla suit That's the size of a man with hands the size of a mans.
>>5066756
>>5066757
>>5066812
>>5067090
Ok, let me break this down to you so YOU understand.
There are a billion versions of this imaginary dilemma that can only exist if you don't actually think.
For example, Although lions and tigers can produce offspring when forced together, less than 50% of their progeny will be fertile. So, different species.
However a million years ago they likely had less of a problem with interbreeding, let us Say 60% of their offspring were fertile.
So they were straddling the line between being the same and different species.
Which is to be expected with evolution, otherwise how could separate species ever evolve in the first place?

This by definition means that Separate species can share subspecies, and that given enough evolutionary time will diverge to the point where they don't share subspecies anymore.

Here's your ring unraveled

A-B-C-D

So A & D are separate species that share the subspecies B & C.
Given enough time they diverge further until they share no subspecies.

I can't believe this needs to be explained.

>>5067481
>was completely retarded until I heard that researchers do it on purpose to game the system and protect land from development.

I can guarantee you that it's actually because they're just retarded or they're chasing after government grants.

The only thing academics are good at is funneling more money towards themselves for doing less actual work.

>>5068930
>For example, Although lions and tigers can produce offspring when forced together, less than 50% of their progeny will be fertile. So, different species.
>However a million years ago they likely had less of a problem with interbreeding, let us Say 60% of their offspring were fertile
Where did you get this idea that any pairing producing offspring with below 50% fertility means they’re different species and above 50% means they’re the same? You just came up with this now. That’s not a thing
>So they were straddling the line between being the same and different species
>This by definition means that Separate species can share subspecies, and that given enough evolutionary time will diverge to the point where they don't share subspecies anymore
That isn’t the definition of subspecies though. Two species can’t share a subspecies any more than two genera can share a species. A subspecies is a group within a species that is genetically distinct enough to warrant recognition. What you are describing is not a genetically distinct group but a group experiencing introgression from two separate lineages
>Which is to be expected with evolution, otherwise how could separate species ever evolve in the first place?
There is no hard cutoff point where one species turns into another. Taxonomy is just how we categorise things for our convenience. You seem to be under the impression that you can draw clear circles around sections of a continuous lineage. You can’t
>Here's your ring unraveled
>A-B-C-D
>So A & D are separate species that share the subspecies B & C
That isn’t what a subspecies is. To call that a subspecies means you are entirely redefining the term to suit your argument. Also B and C aren’t subspecies in that hypothetical
>I can't believe this needs to be explained
I can’t believe you wrote all that and still got it so wrong

Literally everything you just said is bullshit you made up. Way to show you really don’t know what a ring species is

>>5068975
>you don’t understand. if I redefine all the existing terms to something totally unrelated and make a bunch of assumptions then my theory totally works!

>>5068978
So, you're a stupid autist that that doesn't think.
You gave the exact reaction I thought you would give.

>Where did you get this idea that any pairing producing offspring with below 50% fertility means they’re different species and above 50% means they’re the same? You just came up with this now. That’s not a thing
Umm, no autismos. That very much was and still is an accepted concept.
Goats and sheep can mate and apparently produce fertile offspring less than 0.01% of the time.
Caucasian x Asian interracial pairings have more stillbirths than intra-racial couples. But the surviving offspring are fertile.
>That isn’t the definition of subspecies though. Two species can’t share a subspecies
No, that's the definition if you think evolution doesn't exist. The old definition of species was used for a long time beside the theory of evolution.
You're doing the autistic equivalent of saying the definition of red is #FF0000 or 650nm wavelength light and claiming nothing outside of that was ever considered red.
>There is no hard cutoff point where one species turns into another
Ok, so You're a amoeba?
And you want to be taken seriously?
>Literally everything you just said is bullshit you made up.
>Taxonomy is just how we categorise things for our convenience
You can't accuse somebody of "making stuff up" when you're whole idea of taxonomy is "making stuff up".
Oh the Irony.
You're stupid as fuck autismos.
>>5068978
Shameful pathetic samefag.

>>5069038
>That very much was and still is an accepted concept
It really isn’t
>Goats and sheep can mate and apparently produce fertile offspring less than 0.01% of the time.
>Caucasian x Asian interracial pairings have more stillbirths than intra-racial couples. But the surviving offspring are fertile
And? This just shows that different pairings have varying levels of fertility. That doesn’t support the idea that there’s a 50% fertility cutoff. It’s not accepted because it’s something you made up and decided was true
>No, that's the definition if you think evolution doesn't exist
It’s the only definition. This new definition is something you and you alone decided on. It’s bullshit. There is no alternative definition, and you can’t cite where you got this from because you came up with it yourself
>Ok, so You're a amoeba? And you want to be taken seriously?
Amoeba aren’t a taxonomic group. But yes you can’t evolve out of a clade. The fact you don’t even know that much tells me you don’t know shit yet are trying to speak with authority. Go on, try draw a line between birds and reptiles or fish and tetrapods
>You can't accuse somebody of "making stuff up" when you're whole idea of taxonomy is "making stuff up". Oh the Irony.
There’s a slight difference between a retard who failed highschool biology like you changing all the definitions to create your own little pet theory and modern taxonomy. Also yes taxonomy was made up by a little guy called Linnaeus, but I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of him

>>5069226
>It really isn’t
It really is...
Otherwise human ethnicities would be considered different species.
>>5069226
>And? This just shows that different pairings have varying levels of fertility. That doesn’t support the idea that there’s a 50% fertility cutoff
Ok, so you think an archaic human that could reproduce with modern humans but only produce fertile offspring 50% of the time would be the same species? You want to die on that hill?
>Amoeba aren’t a taxonomic group
Lol, now you care about that. Just after saying there is no cut-off point between species and after claiming that taxonomy is nothing more than pet names that don't reflect objective reality.
By your own standards you are an amoeba.
>There’s a slight difference between a retard who failed highschool biology like you changing all the definitions to create your own little pet theory and modern taxonomy. Also yes taxonomy was made up by a little guy called Linnaeus, but I’m not surprised you haven’t heard of him

You literally believe that anything can be anything. You literally think that taxonomy is just "making stuff up". That's your belief.
Because you're a moron.
No you idiot.
As I've already said. The original definition of species coexisted with evolutionary theory because people WERE open to the idea that Species can straddle the line between being separate or single. And by that same reasoning you can have species that share subspecies. And that with further time they will differentiate more and become completely separate.
That isn't some original concept I just made up.
And no, Linnaeus didn't invent giving different names to different species. Only difference is that your classification system admittedly has absolutely nothing to do with objective reality. Linnaeus merely started an early standard that was adopted.
What next? You're going to tell me that Celsius and Fahrenheit Invent temperature scales, because they didn't. The Rømer scale for example is earlier.

>>5069038
>>There is no hard cutoff point where one species turns into another
>Ok, so You're a amoeba?
Are you pretending to be too retarded to understand gradients?

>>5069279
>It really is...
Find me even one article referencing this mythical 50% fertility threshold
>Ok, so you think an archaic human that could reproduce with modern humans but only produce fertile offspring 50% of the time would be the same species? You want to die on that hill?
No I’m saying that this made up 50% cutoff wouldn’t be the deciding factor. That has never been a thing. It would be a different species because their lineage diverged from ours to a great enough extent to be recognised, not because of some made up 50% threshold
>after claiming that taxonomy is nothing more than pet names that don't reflect objective reality
I said that taxonomy is our way of categorising organisms for our own convenience. I’m calling the bullshit you’re spewing a pet theory
>As I've already said. The original definition of species coexisted with evolutionary theory because people WERE open to the idea that Species can straddle the line between being separate or single
No it didn’t you retard. The original concept of a species came BEFORE evolutionary biology was even a field. Linnaeus published Systema Naturae in 1758, Darwin published The Origin Of Species in 1859. They didn’t co exist at all. At least learn that before speaking like you know shit
>That isn't some original concept I just made up
It is. If it weren’t you’d be capable of naming whoever came up with it before you
>And no, Linnaeus didn't invent giving different names to different species
He did. Species and genus names did not exist before Linnaeus created his system for taxonomy. Before that only common names existed. There was no scientific nomenclature to rank species
>What next? You're going to tell me that Celsius and Fahrenheit Invent temperature scales, because they didn't. The Rømer scale for example is earlier
Why are you so insistent on making comparisons that don’t work?

>>5069384
Gradients can't exist without hard cut-off points to exist between...
You're an idiot.

>>5069388
Ok, so you think an archaic human that could only produce fertile offspring with modern humans 50% of the same time would be the exact same species as modern humans.
Ok, once again. you're an idiot.

The biological species concept is still used today...
People still believe in evolution today.
I didn't invent the biological species concept.
Ok, once again. you're an idiot.

Gaspard Bauhin lived before Linnaeus.
Ok, once again. you're an idiot.

You literally believe that taxonomy has absolutely nothing to do with objective reality. You just want to make shit up and you get angry when anyone gets in the way of that.
Ok, once again. you're an idiot.

>>5069479
>Ok, so you think an archaic human that could only produce fertile offspring with modern humans 50% of the same time would be the exact same species as modern humans
lol. If the only argument you can make is to deliberately misrepresent what I just said then you’re just illustrating that you don’t know wtf you’re saying. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?
>The biological species concept is still used today...
>People still believe in evolution today
Evolution is the whole reason the definition of species based on reproductive compatibility doesn’t work
>I didn't invent the biological species concept.
What you’re describing isn’t biological species concept moron. You just redefined subspecies when you made the lion/tiger example. Did you just forget that lions and tigers both already have subspecies that have nothing to do with hybrids?
>Gaspard Bauhin lived before Linnaeus.
He was a precursor but he didn’t create a standardised taxonomic system. But even if we include him, he also lived before evolutionary biology was a thing anyways so you’re not exactly helping your case. Try again retard anon
>Ok, once again. you're an idiot
>Ok, once again. you're an idiot
>Ok, once again. you're an idiot
Aww it’s seething

>>5069560
>lol. If the only argument you can make is to deliberately misrepresent what I just
It's exactly what you said.
You're in fact running away from the stupid shit you've said because it's obviously stupid and it makes you look stupid.
You literally think Neanderthals were the same species as modern humans. That's what you think.
>>5069560
>Evolution is the whole reason the definition of species based on reproductive compatibility doesn’t work
Wow, ok, so why is the biological species concept is still used today? hmm?
Oh right, because it does in fact work.
>>5069560
>What you’re describing isn’t biological species concept moron
I'm literally describing it moron.
>>5069560
>He was a precursor
Oh no! You're wrong! Nobody did anything before linnaeus! He was the first! very first! nobody had ever done that before!!!
>Aww it’s seething
Aww You're seething you idiot. You're seething!

>>5069388
>he still can’t find any articles referencing the 50% threshold or where any that say anything about multiple species sharing subspecies
Kek. Stay in school kid
>>5069564
>It's exactly what you said
It isn’t. You know this. I know this. But you can’t actually address what I said so this is the best you can do. I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince when it’s written right there
>Wow, ok, so why is the biological species concept is still used today?
In evolutionary biology? It isn’t. We’ve known for decades that reproductive compatibility is not a hard rule because of things like ring species. Try again
>I'm literally describing it moron
Show me where biological species concept involves two species sharing a subspecies. Oh wait, you can’t
>Oh no! You're wrong!
Too bad Bauhin just proves what you said about the original definition species co existing with evolutionary biology even more wrong. We’ll just forget about that though
>Aww You're seething you idiot. You're seething!
Thanks for proving me right

>>5069566
Kek, You think Neanderthals are modern humans!
What's between 100% and 0%?
The biological species concept is still used today!
What's Divergent evolution?
Gaspard Bauhin lived before Linnaeus!
Why are you so stupid?

>>5069577
Seethe moar underage newfag

>>5069581
You're not a liger stupid autistic child.
You're different species.
You're a human!
50% of the offspring of lion x tigers are infertile.
100% of the offspring of lion x humans and tiger x humans are infertile!
Wow, because you're a different species!!!
And no, you aren't the same species as a Neanderthal either ok?
I understand that this is completely beyond your brains capability but I'm patient.

>>5069583
Children should not be on the internet if they get this mad

>>5069585
Are you an amoeba stupid autistic child?
I just decided to make humans and all the Mayorella genus one single species because according to your autistic brain, taxonomy is just a "name anything however you want" game.
There we go, You're a single celled organism now!
Have fun!

I don't care if you can or can't mate with an amoeba! That completely conflicts with evolution dude!
I'm so fucking smart!

>>5069588
Sir this is the animals & nature board. Not a place for you to cry

>>5069592
You can't produce fertile offspring with a lion mentally disabled anon.

>>5069596
Way to tear down any argument you had in a fit of autistic rage

>>5069597
You can't produce fertile offspring with chimpanzees mentally disabled anon.

>>5069598
Fascinating

>>5069602
Are humans more closely related to lions than tigers?
NO! Because humans can't produce fertile offspring with lions but lions can with tigers!
Isn't that fascinating mentally disabled autist anon?

>>5069605
Do you still remember what your original argument was or are the tears making it hard?

>>5069606
You're a bacteria?
That's your argument?
You're a bacteria that lives in a tear duct?

>>5069610
Have you calmed down from your sperg out yet?

>>5069613
You can't produce fertile offspring with sharks mentally disabled anon.

Wow! what is this?

"A biological species is a group of potentially interbreeding individuals that produce viable, fertile offspring. For the majority of sexually-reproducing species, this holds true. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Some species are similar enough that hybrid offspring are possible and may occur. The presence of hybrids in nature between similar species suggests that they may have descended from a single interbreeding species and that speciation, a process where a single species branches to form two or more new species, may not yet be complete."
https://bio.libretexts.org/Workbench/General_Ecology_Ecology/Chapter_6%3A_Speciation_and_Evolution_of_Populations_(Microevolution)/6.2%3A_Speciation

Wow, that's amazing!

>>5069624
This is what I’m saying though. What it doesn’t say is two species can share a subspecies or anything about 50% fertility cutoff for speciation

>>5069638
It literally does say that you idiot.
50% is between 0% and 100%.
If hybrids almost never form that's going to be way less than 50%.
If hybrids always form that's going to be way more than 50%.
You're an autistic idiot that thinks red is exactly 650nm.
An autistic robot mentally incapable of extrapolation.

>>5069641
>It literally does say that you idiot
But it literally doesn’t. At no point does it litcherallee say that, it doesn’t even say anything approximately close that that. You’re just grabbing quotes that don’t even begin to support your argument and acting like they do
>The presence of hybrids in nature between similar species suggests that they may have descended from a single interbreeding species and that speciation, a process where a single species branches to form two or more new species, may not yet be complete
This says that the presence of hybrids that maintain fertility demonstrate how the process of speciation to the point of reproductive isolation is a continuous process with no cutoff point. You just confirmed what I said you dumb fuck

>>5069645
It literally does say that autistic anon. it does.
You're too stupid to read and extrapolate autistic anon.
You're brain is severely defective anon.

>>5069649
>me when I link a random source and invent meaning from words that aren’t there
Intellectual heavyweight right here

>>5069652
You're literally too stupid to read and extrapolate autistic anon..
You literally think red is exactly 650nm.

>>5069653
Do you usually have such spectacular meltdowns?

>>5069652
>>5069645
Read this again...
>>5069641
and
>>5069624

>>5069654
you can't read autistic anon.
That's nobody else's problem but yours.
You're a child saying their parent's are having a meltdown because you can't spell "hello".

>>5069655
Reading it again doesn’t invent words that aren’t here
>>5069657
Please keep speeding out

>>5069659
>Retard autist logic "All felines must die" doesn't mean "lions must die" because the word "lion" wasn't mentioned...

Yes anon, you are a sperg.

>>5069660
Poor retard anon. All you can say is “extrapolate” without even being able to say what part can be extrapolated to support your argument. Grim

>>5069694
>it’s the same guy who had a meltdown over manatees intelligence
>it’s the same guy who thinks orcas aren’t whales
>it’s the same guy who rages about cats all day
This is the autist who throws tantrums so often here. The insults he uses, way he types, and his quick descent into a fit of rage and shit flinging when he starts losing the argument are all identical. That’s probably not even close to the extent of it

Holy fuck it is kudu anon

>>5069697
Are you the alcoholic fag? The one that’s clearly developing symptoms of alcohol psychosis with paranoid and narcissistic delusions?

You know /an/ has never been too fond of cats anyways right?
>animals and nature board
>dislikes an artificial animal that 1: kills animals 2: harms nature 3: has a defense force of spergs that think thats a good thing and responsible pet ownership and realistic attitudes are "cat hate"
This has not changed since 2013. The cat person insanity in response has, of course. Its not just one guy on any side. Dont be a fucking retard. The CSAM spammer toxo, was not the other /dog/ raiding toxo, was not you, etc…. There is no anti cat schizo. There is no dogredditor. It is dozens of people. And its 4ch/an/ culture unchanged since 2013. Except the CSAM and /dog/ raids replacing cat predation spam.

The r/dogfree pastas are kind of new i guess? Thats another thats not just one guy. Various subreddits and discords raid /an/ all the time. The ask yourself discord was a recent one. Not even all of the /dog/ raids were just salty toxobrains, several were just for the lulz.

>>5069699
it is quite possible that its someone with brain damage or on drugs because the fit thats derailed this thread is incoherent from start to present

why is he even mad

i cant fucking tell, it’s like reading an interview with francis dec conducted by terry davis

>>5069699
Nobody cares about your console war bullshit
>>5069702
Samefag

>>5069704
Is that a yes alcoholic brain damage or no alcoholic brain damage?

>>5069706
I don’t think you’re in any position to talk about brain damage after this thread.
TLDR two species can’t share a subspecies. There is no 50% fertility cutoff to differentiate species. Reproductive compatibility is a poor way to define species. Ring species disprove that definition. Orcas are whales. Manatees are intelligent. You are a retarded fag

>>5069698
If nothing else his meltdowns do make for good entertainment

>>5069694
>>5069697
>>5069702
>>5069704
>>5069698
Ok, So you're the butthurt mentally disabled tranny feminist autistic anon that banned people 24/7 before the sharty hack?
The mentally disabled low IQ autistic pilllow-humping dumb-fuck that thought actual biological women would support your homosexual mental disability?
No tard. Nobody has ever liked you and nobody ever will like you.
You're a genetic defect.
Your inability to read and understand basic concepts is nobodies fault but your own.
And no, you aren't the same species as a chimpanzee because...
You can't interbreed and produce viable offspring.
Reality is your kryptonite tranny anon.

>>5069711
>>5069710
>Anon is so mentally disabled that he things he's the same species as a manatee.

>>5069713
Sorry. Poor insults won’t fix your retardation. Maybe try not to start a discussion that will make you look like a moron next time

>>5069716
>Tranny anon is calling other people stupid.
>Tranny anon thinks he's a woman and an amoeba.

>>5069715
>>5069717
>tranny anon
>jeet-like insults
>anon is so stupid/disabled/autistic he thinks xyz
It really is him

>>5069718
>Tranny autistic anon thinks Jeets are the only people that hate him.
>tranny anon is so stupid that he has no grasp of objective reality.
>Tranny anon can't ban anyone like he could before.
>Tranny autist anon is having a meltdown because he can't silence people who don't indulge his mental retardation.

>>5069718
Lol, the only people who appose trannyism are jeets. Oh the delusion.

>>5069710
You have mistaken me for someone else

Are you drunk?

>>5069718
Hey tranny anon. Why are you commenting on a biology thread?

>>5069724
Troons are usually severely autistic so they can't tell the difference between different people. So yeah, he is confusing you for me. His brain is absolutely tiny and full of holes. You need to go easy on him.

>>5069718
YWNBAW anon.
You're a defective human.
You aren't a cheetah or a spider.
You're just a defective genetic reject that will never reproduce.

>>5069710
>Tranny anon is so autistic that he can't read and understand concepts like "biological species".

>>5069716
Lol, I wasn't banned for half a year until I argued with you and then I was magically banned temporarily for 11 minutes just now.
You're a psychopath that still latches onto a moderator position.
That's it.
You're a stupid genetic defect that bans people whenever you lose arguments.
You're an autistic troon psychopath that lives online and bases all their self-worth upon your ability to just silence people online by force rather than actual valid arguments. So basically Stalinism. Except Stalin hated homosexuals.

>>5069748
Alcoholic bro…

The mod isn’t arguing with you. The mod is a chrigger and he owns both dogs and cats.

>>5069748
>Lol, I wasn't banned for half a year until I argued with you and then I was magically banned temporarily for 11 minutes just now
You’re welcome to believe that I’m a mod out to get you, it won’t make you right. If I was a mod I would ban you for this spam anyways