Stop making threads on Sup Forums

Stop making threads on Sup Forums.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
pnas.org/content/110/35/14186
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

t. Schlomo

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that

Also, while you're at it, stop spamming that pasta about how the only people who voted for Trump are rural and suburban retards.

City people all voted for Hillary.

no

What's the genetic make up of those 4 organisms? Any bio guys around?

fur color is different than skin color idiot

+1

delet

>Sup Forums in charge of knowing the difference between phenotype and genotype

This is why /sci/ laughs at you

lol genotype dictates phenotype and the genotypical properties of blacks and whites are definitively different

Dumbass nigga

Literally has nothing to do with the OP pic. Though for the records blacks and whites should be classified as separate subspecies, not seperate species.

Is fur color similar to human hair color?

While the phenotype of a particular group of organisms can tell a lot about it and it can help in making judgements in which species it belongs to, it is not always helpful and can be misleading.

Definition of a species is when two individuals can breed with each other and produce a fertile offspring, then they can be considered part of the same species most of the time.

However, the most important aspect is studying the molecular phylogeny, which shows that even species that look very alike can be separate, and ones that look quite different can still be the same species.

Pic related, spiders of the same species.

Both the genotype and the phenotype of both the jackals and the women in the picture are different. The jackals are similarly colored but have inherent genetic differences that serve to classify them as different species.
The women have even bigger genetic differences, but are treated as the same species, sometimes even said to be the same race

I am aware of what species means, I reposted the image that someone from Sup Forums uses to make threads on Sup Forums.

I would like it if that person would stop doing this.

Following your logic, proxy boy, neanderthals and homosapiens are the same species

Even though homosapiens interbred them into extinction, creating homosapien subspecies Asian and European, genetically.

I like how idiots like you try to sound educated when there are obvious flaws in your logic

Donkeys and horses are the same species

:^)

>definition of a species is when two individuals can breed with each other and produce a fertile offspring
While this is normally the case, it does contain exceptions. The polar bear and the grizzly bear, while different species of bear, are able to produce the fertile prizzly bear hybrid.

no

>Definition of a species is when two individuals can breed with each other and produce a fertile offspring
Sure thing, dipshit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

This only means that they aren't different species and we only call them such for historical reasons, since we believed them to be and have gotten used to it.

Again, this only shows that Panthera leo and Panthera tigris are the same species.
The implications are about fertility, spreading viruses, and so on.

Who do you act like these examples prove the wrong wrong, when the rule perfectly accounts for them? They are the same species, which has in the past been thought to be two species.

Speciation is determined by mating compatibility. Members of one species can produce offspring that are equally capable of surviving and reproducing (so basically excluding hybrids like liger/tigon).

Those jackals cannot interbreed. Europeans and Africans and even Abos can :^)

He said produce fertile offspring you dip. Mules are sterile. Learn the definition of a species, it's not debatable.

Answer me, proxy boy
Oh wait did I sniff out the anomaly in your scientific ideology?

Homosapien/Neanderthal hybrids (asians, whites) are genotypically different from sub Saharan Homo sapiens (blacks) and yet they're the same species?

Care to explain?

>proxyfag
You fucking new fag. We have users from Cyprus post here all the time. It's not even an uncommon flag.

Your argument for neanderthals and homosapiens being the same species is compelling though. We have obvious evidence that neanderthals and humans were able to reproduce, yet there is an increase in evidence that they were distinct species rather than sub-species.
Mules are known for their infertility.

Homosapien and neanderthals

Explain it now

>Homosapien/Neanderthal hybrids (asians, whites)

Who?

>flag

this is why people with high IQ laugh at sweden
also stop talking for /sci/ you low IQ retard

I'm about as new as your mother is to cock, but I'll let it slide since you didn't see the earlier coversation where ID changed

I regret not saving that image of two bird species that could breed

I said that's the common definition, I should have specified that it's not right every time.There is in fact a lot of debate if neanderthals are the same species as us, but ultimately there is a lot of evidence that they were not by studying DNA. As I said, molecular phylogeny is the way to go for these things. And how am I a proxy?
Mules are infertile dumbass

holy kek. I will drink from your skull

Homosapiens drove hyperadvanced cavemen civilizations extinct by literally attacking and raping them to death. Their mutant offspring were fertile and that offspring became embedded in a majority of Europe and Asia but remains scarce or not at all present in Africans.

Oh but I guess they're the same species even though they're anatomically different. Neanderthals were not as agile as the homo sapien who had hips made for sprinting.

I would like to take this moment to point out that this kind of semantics is exactly the type of arguments that serve as distractions to racialism as a whole.

All of you are arguing over the proper definitions of species and subspecies, which are properly considered merely a form of book-keeping and organization for diverse life-forms, with all the definitions made up purely for our convenience, with blurry exceptions to every rule no matter how precise we should try to be.

The reality of race is manifest in the question "Is there statistical differences, on average, between human populations?"

The answer is obviously yes, yet the modern scientific community has blurred this fact by trying to redefine the question into the search for traits that ONLY exist in one race vs another [a ridiculous demand] or that ALL members of a particular race be different from all members of a different race to be classified as separate species or subspecies. Its a constant game of semantics and redefining terms to try and keep the question ambiguous, and none of you are going to come to consensus because you're all using differing terminology. To have a meaningful discussion, you need agreed upon terms, which you don't have.

The alternative is to ask the right question, that transcends terminology, which is as I said. Is there generalizations that can be made between the races? IF there is, then racial science is true, and egalitarianism is false. If there isn't, the reverse is true.

>Homosapiens drove hyperadvanced cavemen civilizations extinct by literally attacking and raping them to death. Their mutant offspring were fertile and that offspring became embedded in a majority of Europe and Asia but remains scarce or not at all present in Africans.

The "species" distinction is important when it comes to suffering from and spreading viruses and diseases.
It coincides with fertile offspring.

Research Neanderthals

You'll be amazed to discover that there's about a 60% chance interbreeding with them is the only reason Humans have stabilized civilizations

(All contemporary or recent civilizations in the past 2,000 years being dominantly Asian/European. Next to no advanced black civilizations)

And all the colonization Fags that smoke enough of their own self produced methane are wrong. Blacks aren't "incessantly oppressed by whitey or chinky"

quality post here

explain it to me because i don't know

I think these exceptions are evidence that species is ultimately a human measurement used to describe a system of genetics more complex than we thought when we first invented the division of species.

A problem arises because of genetic compatibility, largely due to chromosome count. Most examples that people jump to for infertile breeding (mules and ligers) are the product of different species with different chromosome counts breeding. These are not always infertile, shockingly, because there are rare occasions when the genes match up and create a fertile mule or liger.
Meanwhile different canine species like wolves and coyotes have the same number of chromosomes (iirc) and produce fertile offspring MOST of the time.
Fertility is proving to be a spectrum of success and failure for a species rule that is supposed to be black and white.

When your argument is "just research it lol", you are as good as having no argument.

But you're so heavily invested in the cuck religion that you're blind to truth.

cuck

I'm not arguing with you unless you believe neanderthals didn't exist and everything I'm saying is a lie.

In which case you're a fucking idiot that needs to insufflate a lead round:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Now read dipshit. I'm not your mommy, I'm not gonna do it for you.

You're just as bad if you didn't research anything and in turn also have no argument.

You're walking away without anyone being proven right or wrong. Its a lazy defeat

This user says it best. "Species" and "Subspecies" are terms we create to classify life based on similarities and differences. Its not a real thing, its a classification system.

Arguing over proper classification within an existing classification system is a pointless exercise when the overall point and prime argument of racialism is

"This population is very genetically distinct from this population, on average. Certain traits appear with greater frequency in one vs the other, and vice versa."

Anything BEYOND that fact or argument is simply semantics, whether we decide to call them races, or species, or ethnic groups, or subspecies. The core idea is that generalizations can, and should, be made.

Sup Forums had take the redpill years ago.
They're Sup Forums little brother, Sup Forums is lost and if you want a libtard safe space go there. Also most of the indie games are shit and you suck on Guild Wars 2.

The archaeologist who favor the theory that homo sapiens and home Neanderthalis interbred believe Neanderthals to be a sub species known as homo sapiens Neanderthalis

Well said. Has popular science been moving the goal post for human racial differences further than it would for other species differences?

Only a small amount of people believe it to be a subspecies given the sweeping anatomical differences

Namely cranial size, body proportions, and the fact they developed tools and cultural items hundreds of thousands of years before we even knew how to carve.

I have researched, and didn't come to the conclusion that he has, thus I asked him to argue his point. He didn't. Thus I conclude that he is talking shit.

Keep talking out of your ass, third word nation.

I'll retort when you offer a decent alibi for your "research".

Under the existing classifications, the different human races would be considered different SUB-species, since they can interbreed and create fertile offspring, yet are

"a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs"

Popular science has muddled the issue by trying to insist that

1. Because the races can interbreed, they are of the same species [a meaningless point to those arguing for a different subspecies classification]

2. To be classified differently ALL members of one population have to be different from ALL members of another population.

3. The races share more genetic information then they differ, therefore they are the same [a ridiculous argument considering the idea of racialism is that certain traits appear with higher frequency in certain populations vs others, and has nothing to do with overall genetic information shared. Given humans share 95% of DNA with chimps, and 50% with bananas, its the sort of insane argument you could make for just about anything]

Other such "moving the goal-posts" arguments are also employed, to avoid the idea of race. In practice, most scientists in the know already agree with 80+% of the IDEAS of racialism, they just call them something else, or don't bring it up in public.

Its all an exercise in creating the illusion of similarity where none exists.

>Sweden intellectuals

Then why didn't you make an argument stupid?

As I said you literally walked away instead of blowing him out with the knowledge you claim to have. Why is this? Its a lazy defeat because neither side gets proven right or wrong because if neither of you make an argument linking to any studies or facts surrounding the discussion then whats the point in starting or engaging in the conversation at all if you don't intend to prove your side is right? I'm pointing out your simply hypocrisy.

Insulting my flag isn't an argument. Support your claims or withdraw them.

If they can produce Fertile offspring, then they are the same species.

Fuck White People and Fuck Donald Trump

Madame.

>Phenotype = genotype
Ayyyy

do me a favor, save this pic

Don't you love how even science is not protected from political correctness?

Did you read the chain of replies? His argument is:
>Homosapiens drove hyperadvanced cavemen civilizations extinct by literally attacking and raping them to death. Their mutant offspring were fertile and that offspring became embedded in a majority of Europe and Asia but remains scarce or not at all present in Africans.

My argument is:
>Prove any of that shit ever happened

You know why? Because none of that shit ever happened. He is making things up.
How do I prove that a fairy tale is wrong? How do I prove there is no teapot orbiting Mars?

He has to prove himself right, and didn't. Thus he is wrong.

...

The real interesting thing is that Chinese and Russian scientists don't share our prejudices, and overwhelmingly believe in "scientific racism"

In other words the "scientific consensus" really is very easy to demonstrate being purely ideological.

But as I said, western liberal scientists still use the same information.

They believe that genetic traits differ among human populations as a generalization, they just call it something else, ignore the overall implications, and doublethink egalitarianism right alongside it.

>the exception to this is intelligence, which most completely ignore, fingers in ears.

"Africa" here meaning what exactly? Because North Africa is part of the same genetic cluster as South Europe in many ways.

use your brain and figure it out

he was agreeing with you

1. They invented tools, necklaces, things of that nature 600,000 years ago
2. That's hundreds of thousands of years before us
3. They had much larger cranial capacities and anatomically different bodies for cold and mountainous regions. In fact you're part Neanderthal if you're not blacker than molasses
3. All whites and Asians have Neanderthalic DNA. No exceptions
4. Siberian asians in Maya managed to build advanced civilizations like the asians in Egypt and yet Africa has always been a mud hut colony
5. Debate me fucko

Africa can be divided into four very distinct genetic clusters - North Africa, West African coast, Horn of Africa and South Africa (with whats left of the central area).

Which part of it do you mean?

...

Debate what, half of these are unrelated facts, the other half are speculations.
None of this proves your hypercivilized europeans getting raped by africans theory of history.

Stop being obnoxious.

I am sorry for pointing out how bad those graphs are, didn't mean to trigger you in your safe space board. My bad.

They aren't bad. You are just obnoxious. Nitpicking is a well known form of diversion.

also, if you really want to know, the source is right there, go and check

but you already know the answer, you are just playing dumb

He's calling you obnoxious for ignoring the graphs and information. When he says African he means Sub-Saharan African, not Northern Africa.

And Sub-Saharan Africans are very genetically distinct from just about every other human race, by a far margin.

I looked at your graphs for 5 seconds and saw a huge mistake, and I let you know. Again, didn't mean to make you mad, only to educate you. I'll be leaving you alone now.

>prove yourself wrong for me pls because i cant ;(
kek

Sun-Saharan Africans (so in Africa, under the Sahara desert) are at least three very distinct genetic clusters - West shore, Horn of Africa, and South Africa (with parts of central).
There is no "sub-Saharan african race", there are at least three, noticeably different, by plain looking at them, and more genetic differences under further examination.

Nice trolling, you could give Australia

Wow again you make no argument to prove he is wrong. You literally laid the burden of it on the other poster and left it at that. Really fucking lazy of you man.

Europeans and asians have Neanderthal dna, this is fact. ethnic sub Sahara africans have none

genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

Going by this known evidence, it suggests those of north of africa and those who migrated up(or perhaps neanderthal migrating down into africa or a combination) into europe and asia mixed with neanderthal otherwise why would it be there in the first place.

Cro magnum and neanderthal had different techniques for tool creation and use, as evident by excavated sites. And neanderthal was more advance for awhile and even started it as evident the oldest stone tools are at a neanderthal burial ground. Also a new study has even show NEANDERTHALS currently are the earliest known user of the bones based tools dro magnum is known for as their predates any known use of cro magnum fashioning one.

pnas.org/content/110/35/14186

>As such, they are either a demonstration of independent invention by Neandertals or an indication that modern humans started influencing European Neandertals much earlier than previously believed.

No, he's not wrong, not as badly as you are that is. I see the reason you didn't make an argument because the moment you search terms such as "earliest stone tools" or " Neanderthal race mixing" you get results like this rather easily. You were either too lazy to find this out or too afraid to be wrong on an image board.

Now he may not be exactly accurate, who knows but God you come across as not only extreamly lazy, really fucking arrogant.

>Stop making threads on Sup Forums.
>go make threads on Sup Forums.
ftfy

It's not a mistake.

And? What does that have to do with anything? How does the positing of further layers of distinction in any way destroy the previous distinctions made?

Technically every individual is genetically diverse and distinct, but we're talking about populations and generalizations. You're engaging in exactly the sort of semantics I was complaining about higher up in the thread.

IQ deniers are worse than climate science deniers

Yet still vasty different from Euorpean races.
You're nitpicking. Sure, they might be distinct differences, but overall it's like comparing the French to the Brits and Germans. It's all Western Europe.

Thank you user

...

>playing video games

Are you 12 years old?

does science regognize going-to-be-different-species-if-we-stop-fucking-everything-up?

That is the definition you learn in school you inbred southerner. No wonder USA going down the drain

>Sup Forums in charge of understanding something as simple as the definition of a species
Jesus Christ this thread.

>Didn't even read the thread

What a faggot.

Why we should care that much?
We are all human being, even it is social constructed, then what? Treating others with respect and equality, that make us actually a evolved and civilised ones. Mixed race is inevitable these days anyway.

Someone give this leaf a medal.

this is a holy grail for redpilling. Saved.

I did, which is why I'm so appalled

We don't. Your people come here and swallow the bitter pill. Once they come to understand that your boards basically a nest of faggots and waifu spammers they'll return to us and leave you to your slow slide into the abyss.

Expected no less from a tube of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate.

Best of luck finding shitty "acceptable" grounds for racism, which we both know this is all about