• 0 Posts
  • 168 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: February 16th, 2024

help-circle





  • I apologize for the double reply, truly. Didn’t want to add a huge amount of text in an edit since I figured you’d reply quickly.

    I’ll summarize my rebuttal thusly, and you can decide for yourself if you want to continue.

    I think we’re arguing over the definition of species using two separate definitions. Encyclopedia Brittannica indicates that genetic species is a distinct definition from the definition of biological species.

    Is it fair to say that genetically these homonids are extremely closely related, but had distinct populations with distinct traits and morphology over time and across large geographies due to adaptive pressure?

    So then the debate centers on when or if speciation occured with each of those definitions, which I don’t think is a really productive exercise. We’re basically saying the same things just differently.


  • And apologies, I did you a disservice by not replying to your single citation.

    At the top of the definition:

    however. Some examples include the ecological species concept, which describes a species as a group of organisms framed by the resources they depend on (in other words, their ecological niche), and the genetic species concept, which considers all organisms capable of inheriting traits from one another within a common gene pool and the amount of genetic difference between populations of that species.

    The definition of genetic species are distinct due to more than just “can they successfully interbreed”. It’s more about their genetic drift and timeline.

    Your own text extraction says things like “usually” and “almost always”, because we have distinct examples of this happening over and over.

    Like most of science and nature it’s messy and categories are imperfect, but we use what we got to do the science we can.










  • kata1yst@sh.itjust.workstomemes@lemmy.worldPerfect date
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    Happily!

    So, first epoch time. It’s a pretty robust standard, covers many use cases, has few edge cases… but it’s specifically for machine usage, since it’s not human readable and it’s not reversible into the past (pre-1970).

    ISO 8601 (depending on the annum), by the text of the documentation, these are all valid dates:

    • 2007-04-05T14:30
    • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
    • 2007-04-05T14:30Z
    • 200704051430
    • 07-04-05T14:30
    • 2007-95T14:30

    Etc.

    RFC 3339 (& RFC 9557, it’s newest modification) is actually a subset of ISO 8601 and is far more prescriptive. For example you must have a timezone designator. You must have a separator between the date and time. You must use a dash between date elements and a colon between time elements. You can easily add standardized subseconds.

    • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
    • 2007-04-05 14:30Z

    This means that RFC 3339 is much easier to parse and use by both machines and humans.

    This page (reddit, I know…) has a great summary, and so in the interest of knowledge and attribution I’ll link it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/p572xy/rfc_3339_versus_iso_8601/

    This website allows you to more directly compare the two interactively. https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/