Of course, they supposedly did that when all life on Earth originated, so it doesn't make any more sense for us to be able to interbreed with species on other worlds than it does with any other living thing on Earth.
yes. that's why star trek is bullshit in that regard. if we ever met extraterrestrials and they happen to look anything like humans at all, the biochemical differences will be so severe that there's absolutely no chance at all that they would be able to produce viable offspring with humans.
But for a bigger picture question, are all of those others able to interbreed with each other, as well? If yes, they are basically like different races of human or breed of domestic animal. If not, it gets much more interesting in terms of classification.
Disclaimer: not qualified to talk about this with any degree of authority.
I thought species were most commonly defined as naturally producing viable offspring. Animals that can produce fertile offspring but only in captivity were lumped in with mules and other hybrids.
I'm now reiterating the disclaimer that I shouldn't even be allowed to speak on a public forum about this subject. It's amazing I haven't been arrested.
There's multiple species definitions and none of them are very satisfying because it's trying to impose a clear distinction where one doesn't really exist.
species categorized by fertile offspring want to describe a situation like this with clear, distinct boundaries between populations:
But evolutionary groups tend to be more like gradients & gaps like this:
You can try adding specific boundaries to the 2nd, but there'll always be some weird edges that don't really fit, like asexual reproducers for example.
Honestly your first picture could also be a good example to demonstrate ring species, which are a great countertexample to the "reproduce to produce fertile offspring" definition of species.
downvoting because it's not really true what you said. sure there's always exceptions in biology that don't fit into the species concept, but i dare say for lots of living beings, including practically all eukaryotic organisms, with very few exceptions, it's a good categorization scheme.
the exceptions you mentioned (asexual reproduction; edge cases where interbreeding is difficult but not impossible) are the exception, not the rule. that doesn't make the rule meaningless though.
26 Comments
Makeitstop@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 220d
Does this mean humans are the same species as vulcans, klingons, romulans, betazoids, trill, ocampa, and ktarians?
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 40 pts · 220d
There was a TNG episode that said essentially that; there was a precursor species that 'seeded' humanoids across the Galaxy.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Chase_(episode)
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 220d
Of course, they supposedly did that when all life on Earth originated, so it doesn't make any more sense for us to be able to interbreed with species on other worlds than it does with any other living thing on Earth.
Cort@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 220d
And the progenitors were expanded upon in discovery too
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 219d
but why do they look like the founders?
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 2 pts · 219d
Do you mean 'why do they look "humanoid?" '
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 219d
their faces have similar make up to Odo's people.
Honytawk@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 219d
Maybe great ancestors of the founders.
aislopmukbang@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 220d
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 220d
The original retro-futuristic furries.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 220d
yes. that's why star trek is bullshit in that regard. if we ever met extraterrestrials and they happen to look anything like humans at all, the biochemical differences will be so severe that there's absolutely no chance at all that they would be able to produce viable offspring with humans.
MonkeyTown@midwest.social · 5 pts · 220d
Presumably yes.
But for a bigger picture question, are all of those others able to interbreed with each other, as well? If yes, they are basically like different races of human or breed of domestic animal. If not, it gets much more interesting in terms of classification.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 20 pts · 220d
Same with oaks. Down with the splitters! Lumpers are the chosen people who will inherit
the earthbotany.whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 220d
By this categorization llamas and camels are the same species as they can sometimes produce fertile offspring
JillyB@beehaw.org · 5 pts · 220d
Do they do that naturally?
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 220d
No, but the criteria is 1. Interbreeding is possible and 2. Can produce fertile offspring
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Cama_(animal)
JillyB@beehaw.org · 10 pts · 220d
Disclaimer: not qualified to talk about this with any degree of authority.
I thought species were most commonly defined as naturally producing viable offspring. Animals that can produce fertile offspring but only in captivity were lumped in with mules and other hybrids.
I'm now reiterating the disclaimer that I shouldn't even be allowed to speak on a public forum about this subject. It's amazing I haven't been arrested.
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 220d
There's multiple species definitions and none of them are very satisfying because it's trying to impose a clear distinction where one doesn't really exist.
species categorized by fertile offspring want to describe a situation like this with clear, distinct boundaries between populations:
But evolutionary groups tend to be more like gradients & gaps like this:
You can try adding specific boundaries to the 2nd, but there'll always be some weird edges that don't really fit, like asexual reproducers for example.
showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website · 7 pts · 220d
As a visual learner this really helped me to understand. +1 good explaining. I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.
Zagorath@quokk.au · 1 pts · 218d
Honestly your first picture could also be a good example to demonstrate ring species, which are a great countertexample to the "reproduce to produce fertile offspring" definition of species.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · -1 pts · 220d
downvoting because it's not really true what you said. sure there's always exceptions in biology that don't fit into the species concept, but i dare say for lots of living beings, including practically all eukaryotic organisms, with very few exceptions, it's a good categorization scheme.
the exceptions you mentioned (asexual reproduction; edge cases where interbreeding is difficult but not impossible) are the exception, not the rule. that doesn't make the rule meaningless though.
quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 219d
Does that mean 3. Desire to do so?
ebolapie@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 219d
10/10 more Keiko please
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 219d
O'Brien seriously pulled that.
ebolapie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 218d
Well he is the most attractive man in the galaxy.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 208d
I mean, she's pretty, but she's also a bit of a drag. Now that I think of him, yeah, he seriously pulled that.
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 208d
He aint pretty.
And I'm a lot of work, so I get it.