lugal

You seem to see taxonomy as separate of biology and by devaluing taxonomy as man made, you heavily imply that biology isn't

But it doesn't actually hold much information about biology of the thing itself.

What do you mean "biology of the thing itself"? Are you talking about morphology which is a different part of biology. And taxonomic trees are often made based on morphological features so there is a connection.

Well, the comment above me was like:

When is a whale not a whale but just a water enthusiast mammal?

And I pointed out that that's not how taxonomy works. It's all about the last common ancestor and it's obviously not possible to pinpoint this to a single individual. All I said was, from a taxonomic point of view, being a whale isn't about being aquatic but about sharing a common ancestor with all whales.

You are aware that whale isn't a single species, are you? I'm not commenting on how blurry the species definition is, I'm aware of that. I'm commenting on the question about the first whale

So biology isn't man made but god inspired?

Taxonomically speaking, the first whale was the last common ancestor of all (modern) whales, whether this was a land dweller or already aquatic isn't important from a taxonomic point of view

Which doesn't prove the above statement but it hints towards it.

This comment aged like milk. It's quarter past midnight already. Good night

They do procreate but not necessarily LGBTQ people

In a strict reading, killing LGBTQ wouldn't be genocide because they aren't all related. On the other hand, they do form a (sub) culture. You can argue both ways but they technically don't tick all the boxes. So it's as bad but not jurisprudentially genocide so maybe a compromise we can convince our centrist friend of?

This is so stupid. Didn't they have carpets in the 80s?

When genocide and no genocide are both too extreme, maybe a little genocide? Or a genocide far away? Or maybe killing a group that doesn't qualify the definition of genocide?