Subspecies of homo sapiens don't exist

>subspecies of homo sapiens don't exist
>there's only one race: the human race

1. your country
2. genuine thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/articles/ng1435
reich.hms.harvard.edu/datasets
theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?226741-Apes-and-monkeys-on-GEDMATCH-
nationalreview.com/article/450509/down-syndrome-iceland-cbs-news-disturbing-report
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_music
youtube.com/watch?v=JW-p9PlDYiQ
simplicable.com/new/technology-culture
face2faceafrica.com/article/african-human-sacrifice
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Biological fact.
I could put a fat white girl on welfare next to a normal aboriginal and give off the opposite impression.

Subspecies of homo-sapiens do exist though you absolute retard.

But they've been extinct for tens of thousands of years.

There is basically no difference between a white European from Scandinavia, a Ricey from Vietnam, and BLACK man from South Africa.

> In other words, ∼90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ∼10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans.
nature.com/articles/ng1435

pic related is the skull of Homo-Sapien-Idaltu, a subspecies of homo-sapien

Humans are Homo-sapien-sapience

As long as my semen can impregnate both of those equally, we're the same species

this tbqh

>subspecies of homo sapiens don't exist
>there's only one race: the human race

...

Flag
They clearly do

That's not entirely true, considering a donkey and horse can make a baby..
However, the baby will have the side effect of being completely infertile.
Which wouldn't occur if say a Scandinavian and Aboriginal had a child, at least assuming the child had no illness/physical disabilities.

...

the different races fit the definition of subspecies quite well but are not labelled as such for political correctness reasons

>phoneposting

Are the memes about Sup Forums true?

>hey they look the same, that means they must be the same species

Have you never heard of a genotype you absolute idiot?

No, they're not labelled as such because they're aren't subspecies you idiot.
They have never been classified as a sub-species by any scientists of merit, unless you fucking include Nazi ones, or ones before genetics was discovered.

Show me a "normal aboriginal"

at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you arbitrarily decide to label them as subspecies or not (and they never will be). the races simply not the same even when you throw out misleading numbers about genetic difference

>i don't like facts
>they look different so they're not the same
>it's up to you if you consider them a subspecies
>ignore actual genetic results
You are seriously mentally ill aren't you?

same girl???

both these people are more closely related genetically to each other than to this person

and all of them are so genetically similar that you couldnt say they are subspecies

"but they look different to me" doesn't mean anything

>not reading the whole thread before posting

...

There's no empirical definition of "sub-species" to begin with. It's a term of art. Obviously there are human population clusters (which can be quantified genetically in various ways, moreso now than in the past when very limited data sets like partial mtDNA sequences were used), and whether or not those clusters are sufficiently distinct to constitute "sub-species" is a matter of judgment.

It's certainly reasonable to classify "Australoids" as a fairly divergent branch of HSS. We also get into earlier cross-speciation issues, like the fact that some groups have genetic "introgression" from Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc. and others don't. That might be a line to use in the determination of subspecies.

they look different and have different physical and mental capabilities which are closer to each other than to different races. and your argument is pretty much "humans are 50% banana because humans and bananas share 50% of dna" tier
.1-.2% of DNA accounts for all the differences between the races but retards such as yourself look at this fact and can't comprehend how we could be any different from each other if we have 99.9% the same DNA

Not full-blood abo

Let's be honest.

If Neanderthals still existed they would be considered another race.

Saying otherwise would be racist

why don't we just give each of the 7 billion people their own race then if minuscule differences matter so much

Okay, so let me try to understand you.

Are you saying that because that certain groups have genetic differences such as how some groups are resistant to say Small Pox and others aren't is enough to constitute a subspecies?

Are you a retard? there are human sub-species. Many of them in fact. But like I said before they are all extinct. And they had MAJOR differences.

Such as Neanderthals and Denisovans are good examples, but there are several others. Those are subspecies.

That still doesn't constitute a fucking subspecies.

Neanderthals would be considered on par with Bonobos chimpanzees. Considering they didn't have the mental capacity for things such as culture, or speech. Unlike EVERY other group of human, that exists today

looks like the average wh*Toid to me

this also.

if that .1% difference matters so much then that means that the only pure races are inbreds

>minuscule

fucking hell, I'm out

btw, humans and chimps share 99,8% of their DNA. just a minuscule difference, I know, I know... doesn't matter at all right?

...

Okay lad.

So the average humans are 99.9% different
however the humans of the same race are 99.99% the same. Yet different race is 99.98% however, the only major difference this constitutes is a slight difference in IQ, skin color, and few physical features.

However, humans are 99.8% different than Bonobos, yet bonobos can not create a functioning society, can not speak, can not do any form of higher thinking without being taught.
Not to mention the massive differences between the physical characteristics of the two.

...

Neanderthals and Denisovans are NOT sub-species of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. They were different species altogether.

>Are you saying that because that certain groups have genetic differences such as how some groups are resistant to say Small Pox and others aren't is enough to constitute a subspecies?

The totality of genetic differences would give rise to sub-species within a larger population, yes. It's not any one particular difference, but rather, the accumulation of ALL the differences.

And it makes sense to think of things in these terms - you can't "cross-breed" elements of the same sub-species with themselves in a way that would give rise to anything very novel, since the relations between members are too close. But you CAN "hybridize" humans through cross-breeding - mulattoes have different characteristics, genetically, from either of their parent populations.

Wh*te """"""""""""""""""""people"""""""""""""""""""" aren't people.

...

the difference among humans is orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between humans and chimps

also DNA =/= genes, the 99.8% number includes the vast parts of DNA sequence that dont actually code into anything

All humans form a distinct genetic cluster to other animals and the difference (in terms of genetics) is very minuscule

Racial differences are obviously real however and the one you see "superior" depends on your values (most likely white since most of us share western values, thus the never-ending battle about whiteness on Sup Forums)

She looks Polynesian tbqh

>biological fact
That isn't how taxonomy works.
Race is real because it's a useful distinction grounded on genetic/phenotypical/physiological intra-group variation within human populations evolved under differential selection pressures. There is nothing apart from moral/political reasons that would stop us from dividing humans into subspecies, the kind of magical criteria for what can be considered race/subspecies often broadcast by clueless race-deniers doesn't exist in science.

>cultural achievements
>low for Blacks

That's incredibly biased, and outright ridiculous.

How is Jazz music, rap, hip hop, Egyptian pyramids, walls of Benin, religious activities of Africa, thousands of paintings, books, movies etc. considered low?

This is fucking retarded.

not really, not even mix polynesians look like that

meaningless percentages by cucks paying lip-service towards race denial for political reasons

>There is nothing apart from moral/political reasons that would stop us from dividing humans into subspecies, the kind of magical criteria for what can be considered race/subspecies often broadcast by clueless race-deniers doesn't exist in science.
Yet no scientists of merit considers a black to be a sub-species of homo-sapien

As a Homo-Yamatoid, I disagree.

Blacks are not as culturally achieved as whites or Asians (hence the "low" score). They've created some great things though and I love how sociable and confident they are.

almost all european "achievements" are copied from the middle east, india, and central asia, which they like to group with them when its convenient only

back to Sup Forums lad

She's sudanese you dumb fuck

They wouldn't use "black" as a category to begin with, since it lacks precision. But certainly groups like Australoids, Melanesians, archaic "Negritos," Bantu/Congoloid groups, Bushmen, Nilots, etc. would compose their own sub-species within this sort of system.

Why would a scientist sabotage his career in order to argue for this, though? James Watson got lynched for his comments, and nobody wants to commit career suicide to push this sort of point. It's one of those things that people in the biology/genetics community know to be true, but stay quiet about. There are some mainstream/prominent guys like Steve Hsu who come pretty close, though.

1 flag
2 pic related is my opinion

Yes, only one species.

Get back to Sup Forums kid, destroying net neutrality will need your help.

Do you think they wish to lose their jobs and get their lives ruined by coming out with such politically incorrect statements? Merely publicly accepting differential evolution between races has gotten people fired before.
>back to Sup Forums
Back to brainlet land with your decades old Lewontin's fallacy. Human races have more genetic variation than many recognized subspecies. The percentage is meaningless as long as you can't explain why exactly it means races are not a valid taxonomical concept.

>Australoids, Melanesians, archaic "Negritos," Bantu/Congoloid groups, Bushmen, Nilots, etc. would compose their own sub-species within this sort of system.

Melanesians and australoids are more genetically distant from africans than europeans or asians, brainlet.

Source
reich.hms.harvard.edu/datasets
theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?226741-Apes-and-monkeys-on-GEDMATCH-

>when memes are actually reality

you fuckers still exist?
I thought USAA got rid of you fuckers

Mate. What the fuck does cultural achievement even mean?
By the definition it is the culture that a group has produced.
However, this graph states blacks. That includes blacks in USA.

USA blacks have objectively produced more culture than a fair amount of countries, in terms of individual works. If you include all paintings, songs, books, etc.

Not to mention the millions that have been produced by blacks of other countries around the world.

This is also only including African blacks, and not Middle Easterns whom most of Sup Forums would say were black. Or Abos, or any other group that might be classified as black.

Not even on their death bed?
Also you seem to assume that all scientists stay on the norm. There are thousands of scientists that deviate from the norm on practically every type of science. however, this one thing has basically zero? why is that?

Why has there never been scientists that said it after they quit their job? or free-lance scientists?

>Neanderthals are extinct
There’s still some of them in France

Unfortunately, Lewontin never explained why an Fst value of 6.3% should mean races have no taxonomic or genetic significance. And it isn’t obvious that it should. In fact, Sewall Wright, a founder of population genetics and the man who invented Fst values, thought that they had nothing to do measuring taxonomic significance and continued to believe in Human races long after Lewontin’s famous article (Wright 1984).

That Lewontin’s idea never took hold in the world of biology can be seen by looking at a 2006 report be the U.S Geological Survey which reviewed more than a century of popular proposed criteria for when a population counts as a sub-species. It never mentioned Fst values let alone Lewontin’s paper (Haig et al. 2006).

Since Lewontin’s paper, research has suggested that the Human Fst value is actually about twice as large, 12%, as what Lewontin suggested (Elhaik 2012). This has not altered the stance of Lewontin on races. Indeed, it isn’t obvious that his stance is open to changing because he has never said how high an Fst value would need to be in-order for a population to be of taxonomic signficance. Instead, he has just said that the human Fst value is too low.

Furthermore, Lewontin has never adressed the fact that there are many species with recognized subspecies which have Fst values lower than Humans. As can be seen below, I was easily able to find 8 other species with recognized subspecies which have Fst values no higher than humans. In fact, it isn’t hard to find researchers in the nonhuman literature taking any Fst value greater than zero as evidence that a population is a subspecies. See, for instance, Lorenzen et al. 2007 and Williams, Homan, Johnston, and Linz, 2004. Given this, it is clear that most biologists do not use Lewontin’s criteria, whatever exactly that is, for subspecies. And given that he has never made any argument for using it, neither should we.

Ethnicities aren't subspecies. Somewhere out there there's some shitposting Toucan who is insulted that Crows share the same Taxonomy.

>hip-hop
>cultural achievement
Pick one and only one.

>Neanderthals.. they didn't have the mental capacity for things such as culture, or speech. Unlike EVERY other group of human, that exists today

Are you so sure about that? Do you think the humans who bred with them were just into bestiality?

I think pygmies are more striking than the australian aborigines. Can someone truly believe nothing separates these people in the picture but a "social construct"?

REMOVE CROW

>i don't like something, that makes it not an achievement
I was waiting for this response

Dunno about that race shit but I'm happy that we are purging the mentally disabled from the genepool!

nationalreview.com/article/450509/down-syndrome-iceland-cbs-news-disturbing-report

>memes are reality
>my sources are just a bunch of datasets with no modeling or hypothesis whatsoever, and the other is a forum post.

maybe you're biased, and overestimating the importance of these achievements

1. USA
2. You aren't white.

I'd bet a hundred dollars that guy couldn't explain what the x-axis on his chart is indicating without looking it up

It'd widely documented that early homosapiens were able to produce things such as musical instruments and cave paintings, however Neanderthals were not.

Also beastiality wouldn't have been a term back then in the first place, not to mention there is no real way of telling if any of that sex was consensual, or if it was rape, or if it was some form of spoil of war system.

That is what separates us from them. Realistically the only thing that separates ape from man is culture.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_music

Tell me how a rap song is more culturally relevant than say a random vase from the classical era of Greece?

There is no level of importance for something that is culture. It will matter on a different level for a different group of people.

This painting for example, it is considered one of the greatest works of painting from any African American. However, to say a Chinese person it's nothing more than a painting.

Population of sub-Saharan Africa is between 1,5 and 2 billion. Population of Europe is 750 million. When adjusted to per capita they aren't nearly as culturally productive (you know what cultural productivity is I don't have to explain it to you) as Europeans

There are around 40 million blacks in the US and they've done some great things but again, when adjusted to pc not as much as white Americans.

If you're going to pretend like you know biology you might as well familiarize yourself with what an "ecotype" is fellow fifty-six percenter.

That's the point. They form their own sub-species. Pic related is a chart from a genome-wide association survey (GWAS)... of wheat subspecies. They have massive overlap, but their differences are sufficient to affect things like resistance to various parasites. There's no reason that humans are not classified into sub-species, except for political correctness.

>Tell me how a rap song is more culturally relevant than say a random vase from the classical era of Greece?
i'm saying the white people's harvesting of electricity and the invention of the printing press among other things are more influential than a music trend hence blacks' score of low

And where exactly are you getting these fucking numbers may I ask.

Inventing stuff is not culture you dumbshit.

Culture is music, style of architecture, literature, language, social customs, etc.

youtube.com/watch?v=JW-p9PlDYiQ

the tools you use in your daily life are one aspect of culture you utter mong. do you really think that image is only referring to music and paintings?

Blacks are burden to our society. They account for more than half of all violent crimes despite being 14% of the population

you realize the median age of africa is 19 right? literally half of that 1.5-2 billion are children and most of the other half are in their twenties. We haven't even started to see what such a large population of young african people are going to do yet

africa has had a lower population that europe for most of history, it is just now that europe is aging so quickly and africa is growing so rapidly

simplicable.com/new/technology-culture

Ah yes, we should classify human differences the way you want because you found a wheat gene chart. Good argument

>cultural productivity
Finns are lower than blacks on it

Intuition. I don't know a single sub-Saharan African movie despite them having more than twice the population of Europe + North America

>however Neanderthals were not.

In fact there are cave paintings believed to be from neanderthals, the oldest in europe at around 40 thousand years old. It wouldn't surprise me if they were making music too, even if it were just singing and drumming.

Neanderthals had larger brains than us, this doesn't mean they were smarter of course as they may have been wired differently, but there's growing evidence that while they were different to the other human species who met them, they wern't as inhuman as you imply. You have one as a distant ancestor and have some of their genes in play, assuming you aren't first generation in the US from Africa.

ITT:

Finland is more valuable than all of africa

>africa has had a lower population that europe for most of history
its almost like they never developed their own healthcare systems

Abos have the biggest neanderthal
dna in the world.They became too isolated and did not mix with more ''recent'' homo-sapiens-sapiens

no they don't. amerindians and polynesians do.

>5 million Finns vs 2 - 2,5 billion blacks

I agree, blacks are overall more achieved than Finns

grizzly bears and polar bears can produce fertile offspring together

female ligers (male lion x a female tiger) are fertile and have produced offspring, when bred with a male lion.

dogs, wolves, and coyotes are all interfertile but rarely mate in nature

That's primarily because they do not have any real industry revolving around film.

However, what about USA blacks. there are hundreds of actors, directors, etc. that are black.

Are you stupid?Abos are polynesians

why did you ignore my comment retard

you can't compare the populations like that when the majority of africans are children or adolescents

God dammit why are portugese so fucking stupid

they're not

If the neanderthal was around today I don't imagine it would be impossible to observe the same kind of contrast you might get between a bright 130 IQ japanese man from the city and a 60 IQ aborigine from the outback. I think they would be considered as a race in todays world. Perhaps the differences would be even smaller than that example which I could easily find here in Australia?

thats not the reason for historical difference in population

the most populous regions are not the regions with the most widespread healthcare coverage

Why you do this

t. neanderthal

Bet you don't call neanderthals extinct in person, you subspeciesist

Because they have relatively little neanderthal DNA and lots of Denisovan.
More importantly they have the DNA of a completely different unidentified hominid that no other population has

>niggers built the pyramids
lol you can't be serious

>"religious activities of africa"
face2faceafrica.com/article/african-human-sacrifice
>Why the Horrible Tradition of Human Sacrifice in Africa Needs To Stop

> thousands of paintings
?

face it, cultural achievements of sub-saharan Africa are extremely low