/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15930510
>Subspecies are designated by breeding isolation,
No they're not.

>>15349345
Good man.

>>15349377
>I am saying "no amount can be said to be meaningful"
But then that's absurd. Subspecies are widely used. The small differences that separate them are meaningful enough for that, and you're fine with it. For non-racists, it should be enough.
As for me, the utility I see is mostly political, by way of informing sociological, ecological, anthropological concerns.

>Never? Yet it is such a problem, and so central a problem, it is so-named "the species problem". Pure cluelessness on your part.
Pure dishonesty on yours. I'm aware of the difficulties in defining species, I mentionned it here before. It's doesn't stop biologists from classifying other species, that's what I meant by problem. Do you think they shouldn't or are you just making a special case for humans ?

>largely driven by rare extremes.
"Largely" is just your personal interpretation of it. It's just a mean. Rare extremes (btw they're found on both sides, balancing each other) enter into account and common middles values too.

>The differences are rare according to the data.
Rare is relative. What are you comparing these difference to, to call them rare ? And what has being subsets of african populations to do with this ?

>You either don't comprehend that "wild" means "feral", as in uncared for and without human socialization
No, you. Feral just means that they escaped human control. Populations of dogs or cats that live in urban areas close to humans are feral. But even if we used your definition, the fact that uncontrolled populations of dogs stick close to humans shows a behaviour difference with wolves.
>You can, in fact, do that with a wolf pup.
No you can't. Stop being dishonest. Wolves can be tamed like most other mammals, but they can't make pets like dogs. When people try it, even with wolf dog hybrids, it ends badly.

>So the bottom line is "you're fulla shite"
Same to you baby.