Those of you familar with the Kraut drama will be aware that one of the chief arguments used to deny race was the fact that humans of different races could produce fertile offspring with one another. Well so can Polar Bears and Grizzly bears.
This Aussie provides his hot take in pic related.
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
jstor.org
jstor.org
nytimes.com
sciencedaily.com
birdaz.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
aob.oxfordjournals.org
twitter.com
His post history makes things even more interesting
Lmao
I want to respond "okay dog hitler" to him but I think that is a little to on the nose
Tell him its a good thing polar bear numbers are shrinking, and we should strive to deconstructing polarness. After all polar privilege is a real problem
>salon.vox.hp.mixtape.com
>WHITE polar bears are dying
>And here's why that's a GOOD thing
>
i thought reddit hated pure races
nu-atheists forget that humans are animals too
its okay to be polar
Often race-deniers and cultural Marxists will bring up Haldane’s rule, arguing that since races can mix and create fertile offspring, the genetic distance is not too great. Haldane’s rule is “when in the offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterogametic [XY] sex.”
nature.com
Indeed, although Black-White mixes are not sterile and males are not absent, males (the heterogametic sex) are more rare than females.
jstor.org
The argument regarding Haldane’s rule is also meaningless because different species in the animal kingdom can breed and still produce fertile offspring. The wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris), the coyote (Canis latrans), and the common jackal (Canis aureus) are separate species yet can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
jstor.org
Two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed despite having different chromosomal numbers.
nytimes.com
The common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus) and many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), can interbreed as well.
sciencedaily.com
birdaz.com
The gibbon and the siamang can also interbreed to produce a hybrid
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Some species that aren’t even in the same genus can interbreed.
aob.oxfordjournals.org
>can interbreed despite having different chromosomal numbers.
Can someone explain how this is possible?
10/10 post
That's easy...
That's trisomy, where an error occurs during meiosis, leaving Chromosome 21 with three homologs. The reason why it only occurs there is every other variation is fatal and results in the termination of the zygote. I don't understand how a something can just get another whole set of chromosomes, and I don't want to open the article.
Fix your copy pasta
>With the advent of molecular tools, researchers began probing the proteins and chromosomes of the apes for clues to their biochemical differences. They found that key proteins between the two showed significant discrepancies. More striking still, researchers discovered a so-called chromosomal inversion. Part of the second chromosome in one subspecies of orangutan is flipped relative to the second chromosome in the other subspecies, and this positional difference holds for all members of one orangutan population or the other.
>That sort of gross chromosomal discrepancy, said Dr. O'Brien, is larger than anything seen in the various chromosomal profiles of most of the great cats. "The Sumatran and Bornean orangutans have as many molecular differences as perfectly respectable species do," he said. "I feel we should treat them as different species."
>"I feel we should treat them as different species."
Thank you for the corrections. The point of my post was to point out that since leftists like to use Haldane's Rule to support interracial relationships, it doesn't mean different groups of people shouldn't be classified as such. Inasmuch, Haldane's rule obviously has exceptions, too.
Yeah, I realize that, but saying that they bred while having a different amount of Chromosomes is wrong, and as far as my knowledge impossible, so the pasta needs to be altered for that part. All it takes is to be BTFO in ze pooblic space making an argument set up to fail to turn lurkers away from RR forever. People should know all about the data/facts they're posting so they can defend them. There's so much knowledge and information available proving our point that it's extremely counterproductive to make errors like that.
>three homologs
the meiosis guys tend to stay over here...
RGR.
In many cases you have dominant and recessive genes. I would have to assume that with different chromosomal numbers you would have a lot of mismatched alleles, but you don't necessarily need to have a matched allele, instead it would function such that whatever the allele is, it is expressed like it is dominant, since there is nothing to challenge it.
Assumingly both "sides" of the family tree are fully functioning with their number of chromosomes, and this is another assumption, but potential the one with less chromosomes matches up with some of the chromosomes with the one with more. So long as the one with more does not have defective genes, it should be okay only have one set of the things it needs.
Since the two species likely diverged from one another its likely that the one with more chromosomes simply added more while retain a lot of the same information on the old ones
At least that is what I can figure based on my highschool level biology
>race-deniers
Wtf is this shit?
>spreading cancer genes
>not letting them die off
your babies are more likely to die
AND THAT'S A GOOD THING