Geneticists and biologists of Sup Forums. how are these all the same species?

geneticists and biologists of Sup Forums. how are these all the same species?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It seems like the necessary level of homogeneity for two organisms to be of the same species is pretty inconsistent. Think of chihuahuas, rottweilers and daschunds. Technically, these are all "dog." And they have even less in common physically than the average Anglo and the average sub-saharan African.

I never understood how it makes perfect sense to people that dogs and other species have different breeds with defining attributes but this somehow goes out the window with humans and to even consider otherwise is inherently bad.

...

they are not , and the term caucasoid is horrible since the caucasus does not represent all racial subtypes properly

compare to : In his standard work The races of Europe Ripley refers to the 'utter absurdity' of the misnomer 'Caucasian'. 'It is not true', he remarks, 'that any of these Caucasians are even "somewhat typical"...It is all false; not only improbable, but absurd. It would, indeed be hard to choose a less suitable name for the race; for the inhabitants of the Caucasian regions are very diverse, and few of them are typical of any large section of Europids. If it were thought desirable to call the Europid race by a name of any particular area in which some its members live, it would be better to call it the Punjabi that the Caucasian; for the majority of the inhabitants of East and West Punjab are indeed in many respects rather typical of a considerable part of the Europid race. It is better, however, to choose a larger area inhabited by a wide variety of subracial categories . The only complete and consistent system of Trivialnamen for the races and subraces of man is that which was proposed by von Eickstedt and adopted in the present work, and in accordance with the name 'Europid' has been and will be used through. It is not intended to convey the idea that Europids are confined to Europe, or that those who happen to live there are more significant than to other members of large parts of Asia and Africa belong to this race. But the name is suitable as any other that can be suggest, since the great majority of the inhabitants of Europe are Europids, and many of the subraces are well represented in this so-called 'continent'. The suffix -id is to be regarded as a contracted form of the Greek-oid, meaning 'of the family of' or 'associated with' so that a Europid receives this name because he resembles or is a European (with the reservation that small proportion of Europeans are not Europids).

because of muh six millions and etc

they are able to interbreed and produce viable offspring.
that being said, there are serious differences between the races and I think their races like abos would be considered different species if they went extinct before we found them.
There are measurable genetic differences between the distinct races, and these differences have effects on behavioural, cognitive, and physiological composure.

Because most science funding comes from the government. The government has also made it a crime to say anything it doesn't like, particularly regarding racial differences. Simple logic says that we can't be the same as niggers. It is impossible that two groups of a species, living in very different environments for thousands of generations, could have evolved in the same way, and at the same rate. Leftists are very stupid people, who are permitted by the government to call themselves "smart" because they blindly follow the leftist party line, with absolutely no questioning or thinking.

Surly it goes like this.
Humans=species.
Dog/canine=species.

But,

Chihuahua=race.
Rottweiler=race.
Nigger=race.
Anglo=race.

Redpill me if I'm wrong.

science following WWII was co-opted by leftism.
"Real" science has been shot down by leftist editors who control what gets published.
Papers can get shot down for using the terms "race" or "mongoloid", even in the correct contexts with clear definitions.
Funding is also a tricky problem that has changed how researchers approach projects, for example a project that sets out to define genetic differences between races might need to be thrown out the window for a project that sets out to define the genetic similarities between different ethnic subgroups.
Good science is being suffocated by political correctness, so the sooner we kill all (((leftists))), the better.

>these people look different!
>THEY MUST BE INFERIOR TO ME ARGGHJHHHHH

Racism is such a neanderthal-like way of thinking.

The viable offspring thing is nonsense. All modern humans, EXCEPT black Africans have some Neanderthal DNA. Which makes it quite obvious that different species DID produce viable offspring. How do you think we got Neanderthal DNA?

Yes. That is it.

So does a horse and a donkey

No you're right. However both liberals and Sup Forums disagree with this, because the former think that race doesn't exist and the latter think that whites are a different species.

There is literally nothing to tell these five faces apart unless you're a racist.

The leaf don't stop


Ban all Canadian posts

>someone says something you don't agree with
>B-BAN HIM! M-MUH LEAF MEME!

That's a good point, the actual definition of what constitutes a species is quite blurry since biology is inherently kinda fucky.
But I agree, there needs to be a way of objectively defining species.
I think genetic distance would a good way of getting a fairly objective measurement of speciation.
After all, what is considered the same or different species is mostly semantic, so I would say it's most important to recognise that real, measurable differences exist, same species or not.


Mules cannot reproduce, so they are not viable offspring.

That is due to selective breeding by humans, however.

it is basically like those tests for colorblind people

>they look different so they must be different species

Give all five of them a glass of milk and then a beer.
Whoever is left alive and standing is a human.

there is only one human race
race mixing is good it makes stronger babies

They're all the same subspecies too...even better.

wrong
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
>Results. Mixed-race adolescents showed higher risk when compared with single-race adolescents on general health questions, school experience, smoking and drinking, and other risk variables.

Do you guys think the NSA/FBI/CIA/BIG GUYS would care if we made plans to genocide the leafs?

if they're objectively uglier, like australoid """people""" undeniably are, they're inferior in at least 1 way.

The black one is negorid not africloid

Who here is actually a geneticist or biologist with some form of credentials?

Neanderthal's genetic distance from the average human is something around a fraction of 1% and he's widely regarded as the same species as Sapiens Sapiens. If you have 2% Neanderthal DNA you have a fraction of a fraction of 1% genetic distance from those without.

Depends on the conditions. The mix may be less fit for any environment where either of the parents have as origin. Dark skin means less vitamin D, light skin means higher risk of cancer.

They produce fertile offspring.

millions of hybrid species are possible, thousands with viable offspring

sez
da
gay
nog
from
leafdumb

>Organisms that reproduce sexually and belong to the same species interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
- google definition
t. medical scientist

If by stronger you mean less likely to inherit recessive genes
You know we can screen embryos for genetic diseases now, right?

I am. Despite outward features varying, humans are remarkably similar to one another. There is very little difference between us compared to let's say, Neanderthals or chimps. We also produce viable offspring with each other, and have generally the same general habitats, and don't have any divergent habits that would interfere with us mating with each other.

Plants don't count, they cheat and shit.

(((credentials)))

Hmm really made me think.

(you're wrong by the way)

These are the same species too.

This one too.

inb4 "Posts 17th century illustrations of skull shapes that attribute fleshy features to divergence in bones"

>there is only one human race
>race mixing is good it makes stronger babies
look at dinero's zebra mutts. ugly as fuk and retarded as a bernout.

I was speaking of animals, the larger they are the less common fertile offspring are. for example most of the big cats can interbreed with some combinations of male species x + female species y or male species y + female species x

i just repeated a common oxymoron argument

...

only that in mankind's case we're more like all chihuahaus of different colors

That could be because of stress due to discriminations by pure race peoples

It's probably more along the lines of that mixed-race children are more likely to be raised by a single mother because Tyrone ran out or is in jail.

lol great place to ask this, Sup Forums can't even agree how much white is white, and not this

for Sup Forums there is chink, spic, nig nog, and a million variation of "whites"

This. Races are the breeds of humanity and some races obviously have better suited traits for certain environments and jobs and etc. than others.

swede posts a zinger on his way out the door to find some immigrant somali dick to suck. or maybe a gay negriod leaf's little weiner .

Which one are poo in the loo's?