in dragon ball humans and sayians can mate without problem implying almost all species have the same reproduction system
4d 5h ago by lemmy.blahaj.zone/u/thiscat in shittymoviedetails from lemmy.blahaj.zone
if that's true then that's mean that there must be a galatic version of pornhub in the DB universe
Really it just implies humans and sayians share (relatively) recent common descent.
H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis could interbreed, but possibly had some difficulties, starting to speciate at 500k-800k+ years of genetic seperation.
But Lions and tigers can still interbreed and female ligers are even fertile, and that's at like 3.8m years of seperation.
All of this means that Sayians probably share descent from at least Australopiths like the famous Lucy. They could share descent from something as recent as H. Erectus, or maybe they diverged from a sister lineage to Homo like Paranthropus.
I personally think it's just that Saiyans can mate with anything that makes stronger kids
Which opens up the possibility of a contemporary reboot where humans CRISPR in saiyan genes in order to gain their (potential for) powers.
Saiyans and homo sapiens obviously have the same ape ancestor so it's very unsurprising that they'd be able to procreate together. Namekians for example are on a different evolutionary branch and probably too distant from homo sapiens or Saiyans.
But also I'd be interested to hear why the ability to make offspring with each other would be a necessary prerequisite for an interspecies pornhub.
👾
Edit: i fear i may be coming across as serious. i'm not.
🥕🍅🥒🫛🥬
Edit2: this keeps bothering me so I'm going to put this here, passive-aggressively: Saiyan, it's spelt Saiyan, not Sayian. The Japanese name saiya-jin is the Japanese word yasai (vegetables) in reverse (plus the suffix jin for "people"). Just sayian'.
From other unofficial content I've seen online, this is correct.
If you want to get technical, species implies genetic exclusivity (under biological species concept).
This means humans and saiyans are the same species, like chihuahuas and wolves.
There's lots of species that can interbreed, like lions and tigers, or horses and donkeys. Some hybrids, like those between grizzly bears and polar bears, are even fertile.
I'm not sure how close those bears are taxonomically speaking, but I'm aware of a couple species of gecko which, beyond simply being different species, are considered to belong to different genera, but which can produce fertile hybrids.
Mules, tigrons, and ligers are not fertile, therefore they* are different species.
In the case of Grizzly and Polar bears; they are functionally the same species.
They were considered different species because of geographical limitations (which are shrinking).
*Donkey/Horse or Lion/Tiger
In the case of Grizzly and Polar bears; they are functionally the same species.
Bullshit. They diverged possibly over a million years ago.
There's also wolves and coyotes, cows and American bison, dolphins and whales... oh, and humans and Neanderthals. Not to even get into all the hybridization that goes on in plants.
Grizzly and Polar bears can produce fertile offspring.
By definition, that makes them the same species.
That is not the definition of a species. All the different species I listed in my previous post also produce fertile offspring.
Incorrect.
As I said, mules are not fertile, nor are Tigrons/Ligers; neither can have their own offspring.
A species (pl. species) is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. It can be defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.