Just because animals breed doesn’t make the offspring the same species.
Species is a construct and falls apart very quickly outside of the common barnyard and kidsbook animals. It can be a useful construct for understanding some things, but its not a “thing” that inherently exists in biology.
We can impose an idea on organisms, but they have no obligation to follow it.
No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring.
Unfertilized eggs do not create offspring. They either create menstrual blood/waste, or breakfast food, depending on the type of creature, mammal or non-mammal.
Every egg that hatches was previously fertilized (at least for sexually-reproducing organisms). The animal that hatches from the fertilized egg became a genetically distinct organism when its egg was fertilized, not when the egg was hatched or laid.
In the case of chickens, eggs are fertilized (if at all) before being laid; and when we talk about “unfertilized eggs”, we usually mean eggs that were laid without being fertilized. Such eggs were not part of the discussion until you introduced them.
No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring.
This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said.
Donkeys and horses don’t even have the same number of chromosomes.
But they can breed, which creates a mule (which is usually infertile, but not always).
Just because animals breed doesn’t make the offspring the same species.
Species is a construct and falls apart very quickly outside of the common barnyard and kidsbook animals. It can be a useful construct for understanding some things, but its not a “thing” that inherently exists in biology.
We can impose an idea on organisms, but they have no obligation to follow it.
No, but the fallacy is in thinking the new species appears when the egg hatches, rather than when it’s fertilized. The egg is already the new offspring.
Okay, let’s back it up a bit…
Unfertilized eggs do not create offspring. They either create menstrual blood/waste, or breakfast food, depending on the type of creature, mammal or non-mammal.
Every egg that hatches was previously fertilized (at least for sexually-reproducing organisms). The animal that hatches from the fertilized egg became a genetically distinct organism when its egg was fertilized, not when the egg was hatched or laid.
In the case of chickens, eggs are fertilized (if at all) before being laid; and when we talk about “unfertilized eggs”, we usually mean eggs that were laid without being fertilized. Such eggs were not part of the discussion until you introduced them.
I ate two fried unfertilized eggs just a few hours ago.
Unfertilized eggs literally never create offspring.
Maybe take a sex-ed class?
What’s your point? Unfertilized eggs don’t hatch, so they’re not part of the scenario in question.
What’s your point? Literal, and wrong, quote from you…
A for enthusiasm, F for reading comprehension…
A quote isn’t “literal” if you insert a word that completely negates its meaning.
You seem to have missed that part.
Did you even read their comment?
https://lemmy.world/comment/24532177
This is completely incorrect. Only a fertilized egg can create offspring. But that is not what they said.
It was clear as day to me that they were talking about the fertilization process, which implies that they meant a fertilized egg.
It’s not their fault you misread it.