Why is it so taboo to call Asians, Whites, Blacks, and other races different species? Especially when bone densities and sizes are detectable as reliably different from each population?
Pic related is a good example. C. l. familiaris (Family dog), C. Lupus (Grey Wolf), C. Rufus (Red Wolf), and C. Latrans (Coyote) are all classified as different species yet can breed and produce fertile offspring with one another.
WHY CAN WE JUST BE HONEST about these kinds of things?
Identity politics and virtue signalling
stop being racist op
>bone densities and sizes are detectable as reliably different from each population
Wrong
because 'race' isn't the same thing as 'species'
no, take 100 male skulls from the Congo and 100 male skulls from the Amazon I guarantee there will be a difference
There is a psychological disconnect between humanity and animals that we can't get over. If we imply different species, it makes it easier for people to dehumanize others on an ethical basis.
It used to be like this
Biologic classification is changing this things sometimes. As example your example is wrong - today canis lupus familiaris (domesticated dog) is a same species with canis lupus lupus (simple euroasian wolf).
>reliable
That’s the problem. Do you base it on bone structure? Genetics? Where do you draw the line for mixes of races? (which we all are to some degree)
As you can see it’s impossible to objectively define and separate races — it’s a purely social construct. Race as a concept still exists, but it cannot be scientifically defined, and thus cannot be compared (let alone equated) with the idea of species.
because you're a retard who doesnt know what the difference in species is
a toy poodle looks different from a german shepard but it isnt a different species because of their genetics
That's why there is such fear even from a moderate standpoint. Humans are tribalistic in nature, morality has only ever applied to the tribe.
You could realistically say that if Neanderthal was still alive and unmixed we'd have issues labeling them as a separate species. In fact we do this Aborigines who have such strikingly different skulls that if they were extinct instead we'd be calling them a different species or sub species.
Either way, species are a frivolous thing. There are eight barriers used to decide different species and they don't need to be consistent.
Two birds can be labeled separately for simply having different mating seasons and different mating dances yet could hypothetical produce fertile hybrids. Others hybrids like mules suffer infertility.
There is no real way of defining it beyond "What this animal reproduces with commonly"
It's not about genetic likeness actually. Take two breeding populations of plants of the same species, A and B. B suffers a mutation so that its flowers face downward but it manages to survive because this draw the attention of a pollinator insect that had previously ignored it.
B's mutation spreads separate from A until its established a healthy population
B is now a different species according to the 8 barriers because it has become mechanically improbable for A and B to breed, despite the fact that A and B are incredibly close genetically.
you good goy
how are any species established as being different? through bone structure and density
This
Fear.
>miscegenation is improbable
I have a bridge to sell you.
Mechanical is one of the barriers, but interestingly enough so is geographical.
Lamas and Camels produce fertile hybrids called Camas. Considering the distance these two species live from each other as well as environments they would never meet and never hybridize normally beyond improbable encounters.
Humanity once had a geographical barrier, something that allowed us to diversify. But humans are complex and exceptional beings, we can as you say build bridges to shrink the world. We have a complex, changing behavioral system that makes the ingrained mating dances and calls of birds an utter joke.
We had these things like tribalism and geographic isolation once upon a time. but we, with this distinct thing called intelligence managed to shatter it.
Species are able to interbreed among themselves and produce fertile offspring. Different races are de facto breeds of human, but the same species.
species is a relatively arbitrary taxa and species concepts are never universally applicable. why bother trying to shoehorn different human populations into random categories?
To clarify further, the only way a human population would diverge too far and become a different species is full isolation from the other population for a long time, due to a natural border like a mountain (ring species), or island (isolated species). In the day and age of airplanes and cars, the only way we will see a subspecies is with the small pockets of humans in the Amazon and Indian Ocean island chains.
>We had these things like tribalism and geographic isolation once upon a time. but we, with this distinct thing called intelligence managed to shatter it.
lmao
>Why is it so taboo to call Asians, Whites, Blacks, and other races different species?
Because science, different species can't mate and produce viable offspring. Like when horses and donkeys mate and produce the sterile "ass". That is the line. If you can produce viable offspring, you are the same species.
A wolf/dog hybrid is fertile and is in fact not a hybrid at all because wolves and dogs are exactly the same species. The dog is now known scientifically as Canis Lupus Familiaris and not just Canis Familiaris (as it is in older textbooks) in recognition of this fact.
In Australia scientists have gotten pretty pissed about dogs breeding with dingos. While dingos are still basically dogs, they've adapted to the Australian climate and basically act as a distinct "species". These scientists would like to see this act of speciation be maintained.
In humanity, we've obviously diversified and adapted to just about every climate on earth. But modern politics would try to downplay these differences to the level of outright denial.
It took the invention of sea travel to break those geographical barriers. Not many species just create a ground breaking thing not inherent to their genes that would affect their offspring thousands of years into the future.
We've build the idea of species to fit around the vast majority of life on planet earth that depends entirely on their genes and not on culturally transferred behaviors.
OP debunked your "scientific" definition, you fucking retard. The first thing out of a fucking liberal's mouth is always "muh science," yet they know nothing about it.
Check the next post you fucktard.
Not a liberal either dipshit. Just know a lot about science. so go fuck yourself.
Did you even read OP or look at the pic?
You're referring to just one example of the eight barriers, one of the hybridization barriers called hybrid infertility. This occurs in hybrids like Ligers (Lion and Tiger) or more famously Mules (Horse and Donkey).
This infertility is caused mainly by a difference in chromosome count between the two parent species. The other two hybrid barriers are Hybrid dissonance (When the hybrid is possibly fertile but it has terrible health) and Hybrid breakdown (When the hybrid's children are infertile).
This phenomenon isn't universal in the least and depends heavily on the genetic makeup of the parents.
Coyes, Red Wolves, Grey Wolves, and Domestic dogs can all interbreed but are different species
Still doesn't pertain to human interracial breeding.
No, they are not. Miss categorization =/= true staement.
I was clarifying to him that the Mule example isn't a catch-all species test. Not all things defined as separate species experience hybrid infertility if hybridized. The notion that species division is also based on the inability for hybrids to reproduce in general is a falsehood.
There is an infamous example of this happening in Africa. Two closely related species of fish native to some lake speciated based on mating colors present in the males. The fish recognize their own based on sight, females and males don't commit fish miscegenation under normal circumstances because they can tell each other apart.
Pollution in this lake has increased its turbidity to barely visible levels so the fish are effectively blind, yet mating instincts still exist. The fish are crossbreeding now, becoming one hybrid species as a result.
Fair enough then.
Mallard Ducks user. Ducks are terrible rapists, opportunistic as shit. Everybody know they have vaginal mazes and cork-screw dicks in a crazy evolutionary race of rape and rape-denial
The Mallard duck male will fuck any duck it sees even of other species. In nature they aren't typically hanging around other ducks but human activity such as habitat destruction has pushed them into other duck territories where interbreeding occurs.
Some ducks are sterile, others have mixed mating dances that attract neither of their parent species. That for now is keeping Mallards well, Mallards.
But sooner or later, they may create a successful hybrid that could threaten their existence.
It's arbitrary user, humanity can decide to keep its own distinction or utterly destroy it because we have free will, that doesn't mean those distinctions don't exist.
From a eugenically sense, a white European with traits suited for a European climate breeding with a sub-Saharan African will produce offspring adapted for either.
With our memes of science and technology we could keep a mulatto alive in either environment, but they'd most likely fail if exposed to the elements of either native realms of their kin.
What about sub-species
>Adapted for either
I meant neither
Why do people claim all humans are equal mentally?
Like other animals belonging to the same species, humans differ in appearance greatly, but for some reason people refuse to believe we can differ mentally too
Dogs are all the same species and yet everyone accepts that a Border Collie is naturally smarter than a Bulldog
Because intelligence is humanities strength. It is potential. The inequality of intelligence frightens people immensely.
>From a eugenically sense, a white European with traits suited for a European climate breeding with a sub-Saharan African will produce offspring adapted for either.
adaptation is no longer a factor user
As long as we are able to breed with outproducing genetically disadvantageous effects then we are the same species.
Not among scientists. IQ disparity among human races is well established.
people are extending the moral, spiritual statement, "all men are created equal" to an amoral materialist society
>Why do people claim all humans are equal mentally?
'people' are double digit iq people most of the time.
You don't understand the definition of species. Animals capable of interbreeding are the same species. /thread
>Adaptation is no longer a factor
As long as cultural "memes" maintain survivable platforms. Without the memes our weakest physical factors become prevalent.
Skin color is one of them, we lost body hair most likely because of desert climates and the sweat gland adaptations so we had to depend on melanin. But we need sunlight to break cholesterol down into Vitamin D, which is blocked by melanin. So depending on the climate we have to be the right shade in order to not die of skin cancer and not die of rickets.
White Australians have the worst skin cancer in the world. Autism and rickets are increasing in Somalian migrants living in Sweden to alarming rates.
A single systematic collapse removing sun screen and vitamin d supplements would spell doom to these people.
To disregard the need for humanity to maintain some level of genetic health is foolish. If the boats sink and the planes crash you don't want to be the one born of the wrong people living in the wrong part of the world.
I'm sorry about your brain.
>different species can't mate and produce viable offspring
Explain how homo sapien interbred with homo neanderthalis.
If what you mean by "science" is eugenics from hitler's regime, then sure.
However, most nazis and neoconfederates are bible thumpers, so it honestly doesn't surprise me that they don't understand concepts like ring species, the biological definition or such since it would require them to accept evolution.
>White Australians have the worst skin cancer in the world.
doesn't preclude the from breeding.
>A single systematic collapse removing sun screen and vitamin d supplements would spell doom to these people.
To disregard the need for humanity to maintain some level of genetic health is foolish. If the boats sink and the planes crash you don't want to be the one born of the wrong people living in the wrong part of the world.
If necessary they will make the requisite adaptation. Do you subscribe to punctuated equalibrium?
Oops>>>
>White Australians have the worst skin cancer in the world.
doesn't preclude the from breeding.
>A single systematic collapse removing sun screen and vitamin d supplements would spell doom to these people.
>To disregard the need for humanity to maintain some level of genetic health is foolish. If the boats sink and the planes crash you don't want to be the one born of the wrong people living in the wrong part of the world.
If necessary they will make the requisite adaptation. Do you subscribe to punctuated equalibrium?
You are completely right my friend, from human race to race the direct genetical difference already is 1%, the genetical difference to a chimpanzee is 2%, we are a species of human apes, the races of humans are the various subspecies we have.
Humans can breed and form new ethnic Groups etc., also; we are affected by the living conditions and Location we settle in, by our social constructs and developed different rituals and forms of communication, especially American Indian tribes can be well compared to Wolfs and others.
Ants had states,wars,leaders,workers,soldiers,housing,individual rebellions,ressource storages,infrastructure,traffic and even some primitive forms of agriculture and livestock, by melking mites for protecting them, since the time of the Dinosaurs.
Racialism is love, racialism is life.
Even if you did taxonomize people, humans lack genetic diversity compared to other animals, most of it that we do have comes from mating with other sapiens.
Africa has the most genetic diversity than anywhere else in the world but there are more differences between individuals than between groups, sure there are more differences moving out of Africa but even less diversity.
>doesn't preclude from breeding
If white Australians lived an abo life style they wouldn't last to sexual maturity.
>If necessary they will make the requisite adaptation
Getting lighter or darker depends on the chance in natural selection. Don't expect to get lucky.
>Do you subscribe to punctuated equilibrium
I wouldn't trust 2/3rds of humanity in being what is feasibly best for our potential.
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.
The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the System's trick. Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today. As a result, their impulse to rebel is particularly strong. But, because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is impossible for them. Consequently they are suckers for the System's trick, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to challenge the System's basic values.
Because they are the teachers of young people, the university intellectuals are in a position to help the System play its trick on the young, which they do by steering young people's rebellious impulses toward the standard, stereotyped targets: racism, colonialism, women's issues, etc. Young people who are not college students learn through the media, or through personal contact, of the "social justice" issues for which students rebel, and they imitate the students. Thus a youth culture develops in which there is a stereotyped mode of rebellion that spreads through imitation of peers—just as hairstyles, clothing styles, and other fads spread through imitation.
The phynotypical diversity outside of Africa matters more.
We went through a bottleneck, doesn't denounce the array of adapted forms we've taken.
...
>If white Australians lived an abo life style they wouldn't last to sexual maturity.
It is a good thing that making adequate shelter is not something that we are indanger of loosing. Also there are other methods like paint or mud if necessary.
>Getting lighter or darker depends on the chance in natural selection. Don't expect to get lucky.
I never said that losses would not be incurred.
>I wouldn't trust 2/3rds of humanity in being what is feasibly best for our potential.
That is an adequate figure.
WE
biofag here. Scientists define species as being able to reproduce such that they can produce offspring that can also reproduce. So the human races are the same species
*larping faggot
>Why is it so taboo to call Asians, Whites, Blacks, and other races different species
Because we interbreed just fucking fine, have the same number of genes, are very genetically similar, and otherwise fit no scientific definition of separate subspecies, let alone species.
>Scientists define species as being able to reproduce such that they can produce offspring that can also reproduce
Not a particularly good biofag since similar some species can interbreed while suffering only reduced fertility, such as dogs and coyotes.
>homo neanderthalis.
You mean homo sapiens neanderthalensis?
I want Sup Forums to know more then classing humans into "whites" , "blacks" and "niggers".
Dont you want know more. like among "whites" there are many features and ethnicities and classify them and know about them. same with the "blacks" and "asians".
i bet you understand the point by now. to sum it up is : To know more about what we know already.
:DDDD in search of Truth.
if you intrested, choose to search information and sources then post them in a general of its own , for ex /RaceGeneral/ or stay bumping trap threads or doing nothing.
The rift of what separates species is the ability to interbreed and produce viable offspring(i.e. offspring that aren't able to reproduce themselves). For instance tigers and lions are closely related can reproduce and create a liger, however ligers are sterile. Same as horses and donkeys creating mules. There are exceptions though, bottlenose dolphins and false killer whales can not only reproduce, but their offspring are also able to reproduce.
/RacesGeneral/ now
and wolves and coyottes too
>berk
Unfortunately different races can reproduce with each other, therefore we're the same species. Different sub-species on the otherhand....
implying people on Sup Forums want to do more than nothing
human species is homo-sapien
mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid, australoid etc are maybe its subspecies?
and then these groupings are separated into races that formed due to separations but also due to mixing of major sub-species?
idk famalam i am not a biologist
Breeding isolation doesn't make 2 groups separate species instantly
It makes them separate subspecies. There needs to be prolonged genetic diversification before they become separate species.
Also plant taxonomy is weird as fuck and shouldn't be applied to animals any more than bacterial taxonomy should.
Fuck's sake we're closer related to fungi.
>mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid, australoid etc are maybe its subspecies?
It's more analogous to breed except without the intentional genetic separation.
Also the species is homo sapiens and the subspecies is homo sapiens sapiens.
they do more then nothing. i smell defeatism up this bitch.
>different species
If we can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they are not a different species
Holy shit look at all those newfags/redditorssaying that black asian and white are the same specie
What happened? Are we being raided?