• AEsheron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    As the other comment pointed out, horses used to be found in the America’s, but had since gone extinct before Europeans reintroduced them.

    • anomnom
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Horse-like ancestors, not horses. And they were 10,000 years ago.

      • OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        In the same way that man wasn’t drastically different evolution wise from that period to now (science says we got a little shorter, but thats about it genetically) , horses were not some wild precursor species here. They were just horses. Potentially stockier, but still horses

        • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Stupid argument. Bananas are very sifynkw than they were 100 years ago. The horses you know are not natural horses.

          • OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Stupid argument. Slective breeding has taken place for all of history, the beasts in your mideval paintings are no more Cats than they are unnatural felines.

            Evolution takes a long time, the banana you’re talking about isn’t the same banana from 100 years ago, it’s a straight up different strain that grew/evolved parallel to the banana your great grandparents used to buy at the store. So, no, it’s not the same banana DNA wise, but it’s also not even the same banana strain. It’s like you’re pointing at Zebras and saying they’re not horses, we all already knew that part. But if a cave painting from 2000 years ago depicts a Quagga, we can all just go ahead and say ‘ancient Zebras’ and colloquially no one will be upset.