/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14789508
Dog and bear

>>14789508
Because all this line-drawing is fairly arbitrary and modern sociopolitical climate makes it a lot more dangerous for an academic to draw the species line between different kinds of "humans" than between different kinds of animals.

>>14789508
something something intelligence meant humans expand and adapt to different enviornments something something

>>14789533
I thought it was mostly defined by whether two specimens could produce fertile offspring

>>14789539
Hardly. Canines are all interfertile but still considered genetically distinct. Same with many big cats, cetaceans, etc.

>>14789539
That's what kids are taught at school but if you dig deeper you find a million exceptions to this in practice. Species that can interbreed are often still classified as different if they are geographically separated or if they don't interbreed in the wild or for whatever other ad hoc reasons nerds come up with.

>>14789549
>>14789544
I see. Sorry

>>14789508
In any case whether you label something as a different species or not does not change the genetic makeup of the population you're talking about

>>14789539
that’s a centuries-old definition designed specifically to deboonk people who would ask: “hmmm well what about mules?!?! are horses and donkeys the same species??” unfortunately we have a lot more absurd examples now. The liger being a relatively famous one

>>14789508
Why are some phenotypes attractive but not evolutionary benefits? What is the genetics of bacchal decay?

>>14789578
mules aren't fertile
lrn2read

because humans aren't animals
we were created in His image, while animals were designed to evolve just like nature itself

read the bible, midwit

>>14789758
we created HIM in our image

>>14789508
your brain is pretty good at identifying different features on other humans. otherwise everyone would look the same

>>14789580
>bacchal decay
wat

>>14789758
The Bible talks about multiple lineages of Humans, and each one has a different birthright and fate. See: curse of Ham.

>>14789761
nufag

They're not. It's just that most "species" were defined based on their appearance rather than genetic relations, centuries ago before biologists and naturalists knew anything about genetics.

Take a look at the huge variety of foxes, for example. Excepting the urocyonids, all of these are extremely genetically similar and likely could interbreed if not for incompatibilities in habitat, behavior, and breeding season. By some biological definitions, they could be called variations on the same "species".

Compared to that, the various human races differ very little, more akin to regional/color variations between red foxes across a country, than between red foxes and fennec foxes from different continents.

>>14789508
They aren't.

Humans phenotypes are closer than nearly any land mammal, thanks in large part to a nasty genetic bottleneck some 70,000 years ago. If we were any more closely related, we'd be able to pass cancers to one another, like Tasmanian devils.

>>14789539
rh- people are either not human or the only humans

>>14789850
correct
only white people are His true sheep, for their lineage stayed pure, therefore gaining the title of Israel

>>14790195
you mean jews

>>14790202
the old interpretation of the word "jews", yes

>>14789508
Other species do have races, they just don't call them "races".

>>14789539
Thats what they taught in school, but it is not the actual definition because often times there will be two independent gene pools that are phenotypically different but could still interbred- however they don't interbreed.

Like many species of birds and whales could interbreed, and they live in the same area, they just choose not to. Since they don't interbreed they remain distinct species. Genetic incompatibility isn't what keeps them separate.

After writing this >>14790667, I thought of the perfect example: wolves and coyotes. Wolves and coyotes are different species with different phenotypes, but can still interbreed. They _dont_ interbreed however, as neither wants to have sex with the other. Sexual selection keeps them distinct, and so evolution favors wolves that only want to have sex with wolves and coyotes that only want to have sex with coyotes.

To see why, just think about the phenotypes for both coyotes and wolves, and why evolution chose them. Coyotes are small, independent, and hunt small game like rabbits. Wolves are big, social, and hunt large game like deer. Excelling in either niche is a good thing, but if a coyote and a wolf mated, they wouldn't excell in either niche, rather, they would be mediocre at both and likely parish.

Therefore, coyotes that are sexually attracted to wolves and wolves that are sexually attracted to coyotes have both been removed from the gene pool. Evolution filters them out.

>>14789508
There are literally no porn stars who look that hot. Coomerbros, we've been undersold.

>>14789758
>because humans aren't animals
Do people actually think this?

>>14789508
It has to do with the breathing of the breath of life into humans and free will.

>>14790771
based and Christ pilled

They aren't

>>14789508
Big Money can't force humans to cross breed if they group up along phenotype differences. That means less globalization and small money for the central bankers. So they use punishments for preferring one's own type to drive mass immigration and race mixing.

>>14789508
were not the same species mate

>>14790694
thanks for the only no retarded post in this thread mate

>>14790746
i know man i have been been looking this pic for like 2 minutes straight.How can she be so beautiful ? that hip to waist ration...

>>14791986
photoshop

>>14789539
The concept of a species was made up by Linnaeus as well as his official definition as "organisms that can breed and have fertile offspring". Are species in any way "real"? Does some definition in any way locks nature to fit mental model?
INB4 blacks are whatever they are. If you say they are a different species or not doesnt matter to anyone anymore because now everyone has his own language so communication is not possible.

>>14789549
>That's what kids are taught at school but if you dig deeper you find a million exceptions to this in practice.
There are zero exceptions. Species are defined by this. By Linnaeus. If you find two species that cab breed it turns out they were the same species all along.
>But these look different they can't be
Linneaus definition of a species doesnt say anything about looks

>>14789508
Bees and doves

>>14790694
Look up red wolves & great lake wolves, which seem to be the result of heavy admixture between grey wolves & coyotes. Granted the taxonomy of those is still in contention. Genetic studies of coyotes in the eastern US also show notable amounts of wolf & domestic dog admixture.

http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/21/8/1294.short

>>14792009
There are multiple definitions of species used in biology, including ones based on looks. The one that really is "correct" in an evolutionary framework is a phylogenetic one, shared ancestory, but that's a bitch and a half to work out in most cases

>>14789508
what?? they do. It's a biome thing. Species that live within varying biomes regularly develop phenotypes better suited for their environments.

>>14789508
They do it's just that we have evolved to notice every minuscule detail and differences in people

>>14789711
Usually.

>>14789578
genetic research showed that horses and donkeys have different amounts of chromosomes, close enough to breed a mule(infertile) offspring that was better than both parents in strength, endurance, temperment(will intelligently kick/bite attackers instead of run/jump/break own legs/neck) and lifespan

they ALSO realized if they breed a extra-chromosome donkey(horse?) that the resulting donkey, while slightly less intelligent/more, will be FERTILE/ had 7 bloodlines running before interest in making a actual species of 4 legged pack/race animal eligible for being an official species ended(cars/trucks/moped/bikes KILLED interest in hooved transport except for HORSIES!! SQUEE/ IMACOWBOY)

>>14789515
>dog
that's a bad example, dog breeds were created by artificial selection

>>14789998
>uses dogs for pic related even if dogs breeds were artificially created
anon...

>>14789508
>Why are human phenotypes so variable compared to other species?
You wot mate?