Let's have this thread again because I just made this image

Let's have this thread again because I just made this image.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera_hybrid
hounddogsdrule.com/k9-classroom/canid-hybrids/
newsweek.com/2016/01/08/part-coyote-part-wolf-part-dog-enter-coywolf-407868.html
unvis.it/newsweek.com/2016/01/08/part-coyote-part-wolf-part-dog-enter-coywolf-407868.html
youtube.com/user/fringeelements/videos
youtube.com/watch?v=hJk2dW6BOnA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Buyp

You made a thread and didnt even prepared pack of related pocs.

1) Hybrid animals ain't fertile
2) Wolves are not a subspecies of Coyotes and vice versa

bretty gud op

>1) Hybrid animals ain't fertile

What about Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and all other archaic hominins which successful bred with one another?

They are entirely different species. Yet they make fertile offspring. So a bengal tiger and a siberian one should be able to as well.

One argument liberals like to use is if we can interbreed we're the same species. But clearly that's not the case. Still it's something that has to be pointed out because apparently not everyone knows this.

ty fren

Different subspecies can make healthy offspring, the aside about coyotes isn't necessary.

you choose 2 animals that have hardly any difference between subspecies, clearly cherrypicking , everyone and everyone will remember how "diverse" dogs are , because stupid people love dogs

You can edit that out if you want. I just want the idea spread around

Animals can produce fertile offspring with different species in the same genus, not different family groups.

Because they belong to the same family group.

>you choose 2 animals that have hardly any difference between subspecies
To highlight how low the threshold for classifying different groups as subspecies is. His point would be muddled if he showed subspecies that were more extreme than races in humans.

Dogs are not a natural thing. Obviously animals that are the same species will look the same unless breed by humans. Look at all the crazy chicken and goldfish breeds we have.

>WE
>WAZ
>HUMANZ

I enjoy the nigger skull having most teeth missing, it really makes it look dopey and unintelligent, just like its previous owner.

>1) Hybrid animals ain't fertile
The state of British education
2) Wolves are not a subspecies of Coyotes and vice versa
OP never said they were.

jaguar + leopardess = jagupard(ess)
jaguar + jagupardess = jagjagupardess
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera_hybrid

can this be a related post?

>Animals can produce fertile offspring with different species in the same genus, not different family groups.

That doesn't address OP's point regarding subspecies.

Nobody said niggers and humans are in a different genus.

Those are entirely different species though. My point is we should at least classify races as different subspecies instead of blatantly thinking we're the same.

>Apes have thin lips
>wh*Toids have thin lips
>Apes have deep browridge
>wh*Toids have deep browridge
>Apes have pale skin
>wh*Toids have pale skin
>Apes are hairy
>wh*Toids are hairy

wh*Tes aren't human. Reminder that they share literal NEANDERTHAL DNA.

Wolves and coyotes can't produce healthy offspring like OPs image says

Can you tweet it to the science black guy pls?

i know, i just think the names are funny and i wanted to share it

Yes they can. Bongistan doesn't even have coyotes yet.

reminder that niggers aren't even primates by your own definition.

...

any of you fags know where i can find this one video on race realism or some shit. i bring it up because related to this thread. but i saw this video here a way back and it had like these two animation heads discussing difference in race and one head always saying o rly and shit like that bringing up stats. help? trying to redpill faggo purple pill firends

>Being this stupid

Don't ever reply to me again, wh*Toid

Wolamutes can. In fact any wolf and domesticated dog can produce healthy offspring. They aren't the same species though. I'm starting to wonder if we're even the same species given how much of a brainlet you are.

>what defines a subspecies is how they look

american education

Is anyone actually arguing that this isn't case though? There is plenty of evidence to suggest the different races are separate subspecies. People don't deny this, they just ignore it.

Does behavior count?

I was referring to OP's point that labeling all human races as being the same subspecies is foolish, especially considering that we know a number of subspecies under the genus homo successfully bred with one another.

Yes deny the evolutionary fact that humans are great apes. Just because Niggers don't fall in line with ape-like characteristics doesn't make you special.

this about dogs but applies to human as well
>Members of the genus Canis species can, however, all interbreed to produce fertile offspring, with two exceptions: the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal. Although these two theoretically could interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring, they cannot hybridize successfully with the rest of the genus Canis. The reason for this lies in their genetics. The wolf, dingo, dog, coyote, and golden jackal diverged relatively recently, around three to four million years ago, and all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridize freely (barring size or behavioral constraints) and produce fertile offspring.
hounddogsdrule.com/k9-classroom/canid-hybrids/

the truth is the races share the same genus, homo but differ enough to considered different species. close enough to make viable hybrids but the races were seperated long to depevolp different physical traits.

the pic shows the taxonomy for elephants.

That is one of the factors taxonomists consider.

ah nature

It's the same specie yes, the Homo Sapien, but not the same race

I think they can
newsweek.com/2016/01/08/part-coyote-part-wolf-part-dog-enter-coywolf-407868.html

Let's archive it
unvis.it/newsweek.com/2016/01/08/part-coyote-part-wolf-part-dog-enter-coywolf-407868.html

I don't know where that specific video is, but AltHype puts out a lot of good videos on the subject, and debunks race denialist videos on Youtube:
youtube.com/user/fringeelements/videos

The gist of it is this:
Race ultimately IS a social construct, meaning where we draw the lines is somewhat arbitrary. A pure han chinese person will never be classified as black, but a Turk may be reasonably classified as white.

Race denialists operate by demanding definitive definitions of race and rejecting the flexible colloquial definition that most people understand and use in daily life. Sometimes they'll muddy the waters by introducing mixed race people, which is obviously irrelevant.

The strongest rebuttal to their solipsism is asking them why they don't require such stringent standards for the classification of subspecies, which is just as loose and fluid as race. This is what OP's image is about. This guy does a point by point take down of common race denialist arguments, if you have the patience to sit through it:
youtube.com/watch?v=hJk2dW6BOnA

Maybe I'm stupid but I guess I'm not following you point OP

Blacks had their ancestors fucking Homo Erectus.
White had their ancestors fucking neanderthals .

Damnit nigger you have a date with Plague-chan and she's been waiting ages for you. Get to it and receive her love!

I LOVE YOU PLAGUE-CHAN
SPREAD YOUR LOVE TO ANYONE DARKER THAN A PAPER BAG

those are not the same subspecies though.

If you're implying different races are not considered the same subspecies according to modern taxonomy please show me. If that were true I wouldn't have made the thread.

...

>using "species" to determine genetic similarity

species is literally just a human term used to help scientists group different animals. has no rigorous definition. You know what is rigorous though? Numbers. And sciences says that between any two humans on average, we are 99.6% similar.

>b-but those 0.4% is significant. W-we have billions of base pairs s-so its significant.

First of all. Significant to what capacity? Second of all, in absolute terms our similarities ARE factually far more significant than our differences.

gotta back leafboi on this one. the whole-genome sequencing revolution will destroy any notion of "species" you may have had, besides them being a series of somewhat inconvenient and inaccurate two-part names

common names will be used as human-readable landmarks in a computer program that ingests DNA sequences and calculates lineage, distance, and morphology based on the relevant coding genes, similar to NCBI BLAST

>What about Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and all other archaic hominins which successful bred with one another?

The Neander DNA found in modern humans of Northern European Descent, is only from the male Neander line
Paternal DANA, no Maternal
Either male Homo Sapiens (Africans) were unable to successfully fertilize female Neanders or female Neanders were to strong for HS to capture and impregnate
Female HS were easily caught and fertilized

It is also possible that female Neanders did not like HS, but female HS liked male Neanders

Things have definitely changed

If it’s just a meaningless means of classification, why do we class all humans exactly the same when other animals are separated into different classifactions for

its a joke

wow all these are subspecies thanks for this great scientific revelation OP

sage

>Second of all, in absolute terms our similarities ARE factually far more significant than our differences.
What meaningless nonsense. Do you have that attitude when it comes to medicine? Identity? Description of criminals?

>I've got a 10-66, suspicious individual walking on the side of the road down Main Street. Description unimportant because humans are 99.6% similar to each other, over.
>Roger that Deputy, our similarities are far more significant than our differences. Sending another officer your way.

Your worldview is absurd. You're a fucking idiot.

Yes because the differences in treatments and the use of genetic fingerprinting in criminal investigations utilizes the fact that we have an average of 0.4% difference in everyone's DNA. DNA sequencing compares those 0.4% differences.

Not that your post says anything. You are just saying

>but what about this (with no evidence to substantiate why you are making this claim. just expecting me and others to bridge your logic)
>wow btfo

Anyways heres my source so go to sleep big boy

The modern process of DNA profiling was developed in 1984[4] by Sir Alec Jeffreys[5][6][7][8] while working in the Department of Genetics at the University of Leicester.[9]

Although 99.9% of human DNA sequences are the same in every person, enough of the DNA is different that it is possible to distinguish one individual from another, unless they are monozygotic ("identical") twins.[10] DNA profiling uses repetitive ("repeat") sequences that are highly variable,[10] called variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs), in particular short tandem repeats (STRs), also known as microsatellites, and minisatellites. VNTR loci are very similar between closely related individuals, but are so variable that unrelated individuals are extremely unlikely to have the same VNTRs.


>why do we class all humans exactly the same

clearly not the people in this thread.

the fucked up part is i don't even entirely look down on other races
i just think each race has its pros and cons
but all the "we're 1 race, YOU FUCKING RACIST!!!" shit makes me want to 1488 real hard
>why can't blacks just admit they aren't as smart as whites, who aren't as smart as asians?

hybrids can be fertile but they might not produce strong offspring or be strong themselves

>subspecies
Those are breeds, not subspecies. Dog breeds are the equivalent of landraces among crops or 'races' of humans.