Also that.

it could just be 0.00067% more giraffe than its parents

I used smol numbers, not to scale

Not to mention Giraffes, particularly Bull Giraffes, have other survival advantages. Such as being extremely dangerous to Lions.

Inb4 pugs aren't descended from wolves because wolves have way bigger hearts <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

No, it's like expecting a Dire Wolf out of a Great Dane.

Or a great dane out of a normal wolf? <:smugon:512048583806025739>

What about a Great Dane out of a Dire Wolf?

Aurochs, the organism from which modern european stock cows are descended, was fucking *bigger than Buffalo*

Also technically we made a direwolf out of a wolf

Czechoslovakian wolfdog, looks almost like a wolf, is bigger by about half

I think your problem with evolution is that you fail to see it as a process.

You expect instant results when really it waffles on for millions of years and every now and then it encounters a dead end that it takes a few hundred thousand to restart.

There's a pretty substantial range of diversity feasible in an organism without having those changes necessarily be complimentary

I mean, imagine thinking that if a man has a son who is 3 inches taller than him, that son will die before he reproduces because of the risk that his heart isn't perfectly optimized to that difference in stature.

FYI, GoT direwolves were played by northern inuit dogs

Like McKenzie river wolves?

Those dogs are massive

Mackenzie valley, misremembered the name

There's a guy who breeds them in my town

When I said northern inuit dog, I meant northern inuit dog :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Inuit_Dog

It's he muttiest mutt

But also a wolf

Didn't know it was a specific breed, it sounds like a group of breeds is why I asked, Mackenzie wolves were used by Inuits as nursing dogs because they have a oddly open maternal instinct. They care for children of any kind

If anyone is to own a wolf you better spend most of your days outside with it.

Bonding is important with the more wild breeds

memes aside, what is the right wing argument for dealing with public shootings other than arming everyone else

Disavowing the actions and not shifting the responsibility of the shooters actions to someone else. And then addressing the reasons they gave as separate issues.

Like normal people

thats barely a solution as it offers nothing to dis-incentivize people from committing the same things in the future

There's no solution yet, that reaction is how a dialogue is opened to find a solution though. But it takes both sides discussing it instead of shifting blame and focusing on uninvolved issues to make progress towards an answer. Basically until the left wing stops being reactionary obstructionists we're unlikely to get a solution.

they need a cause to die for tbh

that might be part of it

maybe not die for but

Theodore Roosevelt lamented about the end of the wild west and how young men wouldn't have adventure any more

and we had WW1 and WW2, korea and vietnam

and they all had their own bad effects

but it might be that we're just too comfortable

not many people comparatively have fought in Iraq/Afghanistan or been affected directly by the wars there

go to boxing

get punched a lot, have a goal