/sci/ - Science & Math

No, because we can reproduce with each other.

>>4421253
So can various other species

>>4421253
So can multiple breeds of dog or cat.

>>4421251
The races would be different breeds or subspecies, like how a greyhound is different to a corgi.

actually, they are classified:

Species: Homo sapiens

Subspecies(race):
Homo sapiens asiaticus
Homo sapiens europaeus
Homo sapiens afer (africanus)
Homo sapiens americanus

source: linneaus 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae

>>4421253
In addition to what the other two said, wouldn't this mean then that different races are in fact different subspecies? Which completely the abolishes the thought of all humans as a singular race?

>>4421258
A dog can't breed with a cat

>>4421265
Well yeah, but good luck getting the general public to accept that.

>>4421253
go and learn something about biology

to be counted as the same species you need to be able to reproduce. still there are subspecies.
like anonymous mentioned: different dog races/subspecies

>>4421266
Hence "or" instead of "and".

>>4421271
But breeds =/= species

>>4421273
I know, I constructed the sentence poorly, my apologies.

>>4421273
Breed = Subspecies

more like domestic race / domestic subspecies

>>4421275
You are forgiven.

>Canid hybrids are the result of interbreeding between different species of the canine (dog) family (Canidae)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

No. There is not enough difference to qualify as a subspecies. All living humans are members of the same subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1217_021226_tvinterbreeding_2.html
>Coyotes traveled east and took over their territory—and when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials reintroduced the wolf into North Carolina, they soon discovered "coywolf" pups, coyote/wolf mixed-breeds.

http://rafonda.com/interbreeding_between_species.html
> From time to time I encounter the assertion that H. sapiens (and/or H. sapiens sapiens) could not have interbred with H. erectus, because they are different species. I've also been told that, "If they could have produced fertile offspring, then they weren't really different species". These fairly common misconceptions proceed from a misunderstanding of the 'biological species concept', which makes species distinctions based on fertility. Most people leave school thinking that, if two creatures can produce fertile offspring, then they must belong to the same species. I wouldn't be surprised if many teachers actually tell students that, but it simply isn't so.

>>4421286
go to school
homo sapiens sapiens is an very old term. not to say its not used anymore

>>4421286
you mean the difference in bone structure, muscle structure, facial structure, brain size, etc isn't enough?

or are you someone who thinks melanin levels are all that defines races.

>>4421286
But we have very different body structures, facial structures and brain sizes amongst our ethnicities.

so we are actually different species?

>>4421294
>you mean the difference in bone structure, muscle structure, facial structure, brain size, etc isn't enough?

Correct. Those are all extremely minor differences, all things considered.

>>4421298
are you serious?

>>4421294
he dont know anything about genetics
there is enough difference. the problem is: you classify you racist.

e.g. its a proven fact that (in average) white people are smarter, black people are stronger.
no racist.
one scientist

>>4421301
>are you serious?

Yes.

>>4421304
It's irritating that you can't say this either because of shitty social standards.
It's objective fact.

>>4421269

you guys are morons. Dog breeds are not different species. They were all bread from wolves. They are not species at all, but man made breeds.

>>4421311
you are also missing education

http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00349.htm
>Hello. I thought that the definition of species was a population that can interbreed. Why, then, are dogs (Canis familiaris), wolves (Canis lupus & rufus), and coyotes (Canis latrans) considered separate species if they can interbreed? The offspring are not infertile, as in the case of the mule. Thank you.

>There is always an exception to every rule isn't there? Dogs and wolves are so close to each other in evolutionary time, i.e., their common ancestor was very recent, that apparently they can interbreed and have fertile offspring. Much of this has to do with the chromosome number and being able to match each chromosome during meiosis. Horses and donkeys can produce mules because there isn't a problem at fertilization but the mule offspring are left with an odd number of chromosomes. So when and if two mules tried to mate, at fertilization, there would be a problem matching genetic information. The offspring would fail to develop.

>>4421318
>hurr you're stupid

Subspecies actually means something. A difference between populations =/= subspecies.

>>4421312
yes, and most humans are either too stupid to understand, or afraid to be called racist. science destroyed unicorns, science destroy racism

>>4421320
excuse the source but here goes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
>In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases, this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

>Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

We spread out across the globe quite along time ago and I take it a lot of you believe in evolution. So there you have it, according to that we are different sub species, however we may be entirely different species altogether.

>>4421304
>>4421312
>objective fact
>constantly debated for centuries even amongst scientists

>>4421312
>It's objective fact.

No, it's not. That there is variation between populations is objective fact. That these variations constitute a "subspecies" is simply false under current biological classifications.

>>4421329
the main problem is, the society is afraid to classify.
no problem to classify in gender, sexual orientation, etc
but a problem to classify in species?

>>4421333
>that these variations constitute a "subspecies" is simply false under current biological classifications.
see
>>4421329

>>4421333
>... not

just adding the punch line
thank me later

>>4421337
I can fuck and impregnate black women. They can have children which go on to fuck and impregnate asians and so on... You don't know what species means do you?

>>4421344
I don't think you know what species is.
Try reading the thread.

>>4421344
wolves can interbreed with dogs

canidae - family
canini - species
vulpini - species

get your facts right.

>>4421341

Yeah, I'm seeing it. What's your point?

>>4421352
>specific locally adapted traits
this is present in people

>>4421352
you're missing education. point.

>>4421354

Not to a sufficient degree by conventional standards. Neither level of variation nor discreteness of populations is sufficient to qualify conventional races as subspecies.

Simply pointing out that there is variation is not an argument. There is variation between my immediate family and yours. Far more than between races, in fact. But you and I are not of different subspecies.

>>4421357
>hurr

>>4421384
>Not to a sufficient degree by conventional standards.
and what are these standards

>There is variation between my immediate family and yours. Far more than between races, in fact. But you and I are not of different subspecies.
hurr

>>4421384
>But you and I are not of different subspecies.
All depends on what you are and what I am.

There is morphological difference between the 'races' of men, there are even differences we can't see. Yet the differences genetically doesn't reach the threshold of being called different subspecies.

>>4421264
So be careful when quoting 18th century literature, even when it came from the father of taxonomy.

Also, here's an article, you call yourself scientists, but don't back themself up.
http://www.realfuture.org/GIST/Readings/Templeton(1998).pdf

There you go, OP.

Until the 1960s, Neanderthals were classified as Homo neanderthalensis, a different species from us, Homo sapiens. But the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis (<0.08%) 20 is less than the genetic distance between the two chimpanzee species (0.103). 21 Today, Neanderthals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 22 a sub-species of our species, while we are another sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens. The genetic distance between (sub-Saharan) Africans and Eurasians (0.2%) is more than twice the genetic distance between living humans and Neanderthals (0.08%) 23 so, at the very least, Africans should be classified as a sub-species, Homo sapiens africanus and Eurasians as another sub-species, Homo sapiens eurasianensis.
    Finally, the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus is estimated as 0.170 24 (mean given as 0.19), 25 about the same as the genetic distance between the Bantu Africans and the Eskimos, but the genetic distance between living Africans and Eurasians is 0.23 (Table 7-1, p. 45). Thus, Homo sapiens is more closely related to Homo erectus than Eurasians are to sub-Saharan Africans. Either erectus should be reclassified as Homo sapiens erectus or sub-Saharan Africans should be reclassified as Homo africanus. 26

>>4421437
source on that one?

>>4421443
http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap28.html
Credibility may vary. This book is either considered either eye-opening or intellectual circlejerk. Though sources are listed at the bottom.

There is morphological difference between the 'races' of men, there are even differences we can't see. Yet the differences genetically doesn't reach the threshold of being called different subspecies.

>threshold
WAT? When we feel something is different enough we make it a new species, thats it. No real scientific method behind it.

ITT: Faggots dont understand basic biology.

>>4421434
>also heres a giant pdf with no location for where the text i referenced is.

>>4421453
elaborate for us simpletons then would you please?

It's all word games. If aliens were classifying life on earth, they would probably come to most, if not all, of the conclusions the so called 19th century thinkers came to. They absolutely wouldn't by into the human family non sense. An ugly reality and people just want to pretend it isn't true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCwLDEMUKY4

Anyone who takes this video seriously doesn't understand that we're all human, despite color and other bodily features.

>>4421458
What do you need elaborated, simpleton?

>>4421469
the basics of biology

>>4421466

yes we are, yet race is still a reality

>>4421464
Yeah, it's all based on emotions. People are scared of scientific classification of human beings because they think the only logical outcome of this is concentration camps.
The "sub" in "subspecies" doesn't mean "worse", it's just a division. There are no specimens in a species who belong to a "master species", that'd be like saying there's an animal that's just a "mammal".

>>4421478
Read a first year university biology book, or gtfo.

>>4421454

If the link doesn't work, just search Templeton 1998.

Also the text I wrote myself, as I already knew that stuff.

>>4421487
they dont mean anything bro

>>4421487
>biology
>hard science

>>4421498
>hard science
>biology

>>4421487
i'd rather a useful science like physics

>>4421492
source what you wrote yourself then

>>4421464

Implying aliens wouldn't figure out how genetics work. You can't just go by morphology nowadays to classify something.

Also, something is considered a family if the different genera appair in a clade on the phylogenetic tree. Which all human 'races' do.

>>4421487

>implying I haven't

neuroscience and genetics actually support those classifications, bro.

http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15651931
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2809%2900537-4/abstract
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128221025.htm

>>4421510

>Implying aliens wouldn't figure out how genetics work.

which is why they would classify homo sapiens in several races

Modern scientists do acknowledge that races exist, they just call them "populations" so they don't get persecuted by the PC police.
Though I heard some research on Australian Aborigines is banned because it'd prove that they're literally not human.

>>4421546

Aboriginals are the trashcan of the human species.

They achieved hardly anything, and are ugly to boot.

>>4421546
This wouldn't surprise me. Anyone who's ever men an aboriginal would probably realise this is true

No.

Not that there's really any standardization to taxonomy anyway...

>>4421559
Nonsense! They achieved plenty!
They invented the stick that you throw at things.
Then invented the stick that you blow in to and it makes a sound.
Then they invented the stick that you use to hit things.
Then they invented the stick that you use as a pillow.
Then they invented...

I'm having a genetics course atm. My lecturer agreed that there are major difference and genetics variations between races and that's actually a good thing for our survival. The only reason we don't officially have that kind of classification is because racists would exploit it for their political agenda and would presence a threat to the minority.

In medicine, the race classification is regarded by scientist since there are many genetics factors that affect our ability to metabolise various drugs based on our race.

So tldr its because if racists that we don't have an official/political race classification atleast here in Europe. Among scientists that's a normal thing to classifies people based on race since that's useful in many field

>>4421520

So can we conclude that the different races of Homo sapiens are clustered in different genetic groups. They are definitly not different species in both the classic and evolutionary species concept.
We are however justified to speak of subspecies.

Does this wrap it up?

oh lawd top ten troll topic on /sci/ this thread was doomed from the beginning

just read this thread and jesus fucking christ either you took the biology not a hard science thing so far you completely forgot the basics or you are all dumber than pigshit. science and maths my arse, more like pseudo-intellectual retards waving their dicks.

>>4421617
hows your first day on /sci/ going partner

>>4421617

to which side are you referring?

>>4421624
not my first day, just every time i come back i get so disgusted i have to leave for a month

>mfw people think that there isn't a biological difference between the races and then go on to say that looks are down to your genetics.......

>>4421730
forgot my face

>>4421384
Lewontin Fallacy is strong in this one.

Speaking from a spectrophotometrical analysis viewpoint, black people are of a sub-different genial order than whites.

I think all you retards are forgetting something. Sure, a hybrid can be formed. But all hybrids are sterile. The definitio of a species says that it must be able to reproduce with each other AND PRODUCE FERTILE YOUNG THAT CAN ALSO REPRODUCE.

Also, race is a mostly socially constructed idea. There is more genetic variation between two fruit flies than between a human and a chimp, let alone two humans. Source, fuentes "biological anthropology second edition"

>>4421785
L2CITATION

>>4421304
Also, you are retarded. The amount of variables required to determine "intelligence" and "strength" are beyond measureable, and the data is skewed by just looking at "Hurr lets forget every single variable and focus on just race"

>>4421785
This is false. All hybrids are NOT sterile.

Here you go though:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787

Is Homosapiens Polytypic?:

"The term race is a traditional synonym for subspecies, however it is frequently asserted that Homo sapiens is monotypic and that what are termed races are nothing more than biological illusions. In this manuscript a case is made for the hypothesis that H. sapiens is polytypic, and in this way is no different from other species exhibiting similar levels of genetic and morphological diversity. "

>>4421792
Its already been proven that Intelligence is 40-50% genetically inherited.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110809/genes-play-big-role-in-intelligence

>>4421810
>proven
Its like a /sci/ buzzword. It was also "proven" at one time the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth. I know this is good research, but please take everything with a grain of salt.

>>4421797

Don't you mean "not all hybrids are sterile", instead of "all hybrids are not sterile".

>>4421859
Yeah I forgot to ad the "most", most hybrids are sterile, but there are exceptions of very genetically similar animals that can.

>>4421820

Agree completely.
But I can't say it used to be 'proven that the earth was flat, etc.' Just that people accepted it was, without needing proof.

To go back on the subject. It's not racist to say European and African descents are of a different phylogenetic clade within the Homo sapiens species. And you know what, they are different. Can't we just leave it now.

>>4421891
I just think there is still way too much genetic similarities between what we call "races" to distinguish them biological. Sure, for the sake of a social approach, it may benefit to classify them further, but in the context of biology race has no real meaning, yet anyway. Maybe in a million years.

>>4421930
Distinguish them biologically*
Damn trying to type while doing Lab Reports is a bitch

Human variation is somewhat unexciting. We only come in shades of tan and brown, we don't have any cool markings to help us blend in to different environments, we have relatively little variation in size across the board...

Nothing bad happens when we fuck people from the other side of the world who haven't had genetic contact with us for 40,000 years. It's disappointing, really. Intelligent life on Earth is essentially monotypic. No orcs, dwarves or khajiit running around, just boring-ass humans and their dull color scheme.

>>4421947
That's because our population was reduced to a few thousand individuals not too long ago. We are quite inbred as a result.

>>4421294
10/10 dear sir

>>4421930
This is bologna... the whole percent difference between races vs between individuals argument is poorly reasoned. It doesn't matter what percent, it matters what genes are actually different and what they do. Black people don't sunburn as easily as white people, and they don't have white children because this trait is genetic.

Thus race is biologically meaningful.

>>4421930

Yes it is. The entire concept of 'breeding' is based on race.

>>4421947
>>4421947

>Dolphins and Chimpanzees have been confirmed for intelligence and sentience.

>What now faggot?

>>4421968
Well the flood wiped out most of the sinners, so i guess it wasnt all bad lol =P

>>4421294
Big lips, big nose, big ears, black curly hair, black eyes, low IQ, more muscular, faster runner, low bodyfat %, different speech, different mating calls, barely sentient, steal, rape, murder over 5 dollars. How doesnt this signify a different race?

>>4421942
Trying to type while typing a lab report.
>lab report
What kind of class has lab reports lol?

europeans, asians, iranians, indians and turks are all sort of together i think

niggers n abbos n arabs r just fucktarded

>>4422402

how come black people I know don't do those things (except having big lips and curly hair)

>>4424154
and then of course there are white folks with big lips and curly hair...

and then there are black folks who don't have big lips

it's a troll you silly willy

>>4424159
>im being retarded and no one can stop me

>>4421947
>That feel when you can't cross Imperial with a Khajitt
to produce Nekomimi.

;________;

>>4421286
> All living humans are members of the same subspecies,
> homo sapiens sapiens.

/sci/ sure can't into biology for it being such a soft science.

>>4424276
elaborate for us then would you?

>>4424288
as has been repeatedly mentioned and ignored itt,
many species can interbreed and many can produce viable offspring with other similar species.

the ability- or lack of- to breed isn't what determines a species or a subspecies.

>>4424292
most of the people in the thread saw that though. it was only the people saying that we are all the same race or w/e that ignored it.

>>4424294
unless I missed it, no one has yet stated the real reason humans are considered to be one species and subspecies.

that's an interesting failure, but perhaps not surprising since it's unlikely a lot of taxonomists hang here.

>>4424300
could you state the real reason then to clear this up.

Don't we as a species have very little genetic diversity?

>>4424304
We are one species and subspecies not because we CAN breed, but because we DID breed.

prior to the invention of sailboats a decent argument could be made that we were several subspecies, perhaps even several species.

however since we've gone and fucked each other almost everywhere humans exist, mixing the phenotypes to the point that they can't be tracked or differentiated, we can't be considered distinct anything anymore.

we removed the geological boundaries and homogenized the population to the point of being one. To be separate species something must prevent races from interbreeding. Currently nothing does.

>>4424310
no i dont think thats right

>>4424310
If we were all mixed wouldnt we all look and be made the same?

>>4424316
If we mixed enough.

we aren't that mixed, we're just mixed enough that you can't call anyone a 'pure' example of any race any more.

the mixing is less important than the ability to mix though.

if we suddenly lost airplanes, cars, trains, boats and jet skis you could in a few generations again bring a solid argument for several subspecies- or perhaps species of human.

>>4424316
also there's the matter of individual variation. No population is ever going to all look exactly the same. Members of different races appear very similar to each other to us only because they're different from us.

>>4424322
>Members of different races appear very similar to each other to us only because they're different from us.

that's the same with everything.

>>4422407
Uh, chemistry labs? You know, real sciences. Please stick to your humanities or whatever they are called nowadays and debate how the shit in your ass makes you feel.

>>4424326
yes.

the naming of species (or races or individuals) is no more or less arbitrary than the naming of every other thing.

>>4424328
i dont think you understand

>>4424332
probably not.
care to elaborate?

>>4424333
Lewontin Fallacy

the key here isn't just producing offspring but FERTILE offspring. I.e ligers and mules can't make babies because their sterile. However humans with different amounts of melanin in their skin are perfectly capable of doing so. there are no races, only clines.

>implying op's definition of "race" isn't a social construct and hasn't varied for thousands for years.

i don't even know why i'm bothering to fucking explain. just more shitposting and assholery from some psuedo arm chair babbies who think they are smart. you all fail. i'm mad as hell and my jimmies are rustled. saged, closed window, shut down computer, wiped harddrive, smashed my pc, burnt down my house, pushed my car into a river and flew to mexico. -10000000/10

>>4424338
2/10
almost read the whole post.

>>4424334
... would be the fallacy you're commiting if you reject my explanation of why individual variations are less prominent than racial features to a non-member of a race.

you don't seem to be rejecting the statement though, so we're both fine in that regard, correct?

>>4424338
leftist_is_shown_the_facts.jpg

>>4424338
>the key here isn't just producing offspring but FERTILE offspring.

false.
idiot also.

many different species produce viable, fertile hybrid offspring.

>>4424343
such as?

>>4424341
nothing looks exactly the same and it's a silly argument to claim that because white people look different from each other means they are the same as black people or yellow people. it just doesnt even make sense.

Are there predictable genetic differences between populations of humans? Yes.

Are there genetic differences within human populations? Yes.

These are facts.

What you /sci/tards have to realize about biology is that while taxonomy is a valuable tool for *science!*, it's very much arbitrary in it's implementation and creation. By that I mean that different scientists could create different criteria for creating groups and still gain meaningful data.

In other words, taxonomy is an abstraction of a very complex natural process. There isn't an objective "species" or "kingdom" in nature that would be independently realized in separate scientific circles, unlike the sequence of primes, value of pi, e, etc.

I for one no longer see the point in trying to group humans into different subspecies as we are no longer a divided population. By this I mean that the niches and pressures that would shape our genes by survival are now shared by the majority of humans. Once isolated populations are now breeding freely with others thanks to developments in travel and culture, and their survival is now predicated on similar attributes.

Very soon we'll see such diversity from the mixing of the once separate populations that creating subspecies will have no meaning. In 5-6 more generations, what will the sub-species African mean after they have other species' genes? Who will that African sub-species classification apply to? How will you even test for the *ideal* African specimens?

Just sounds kind of pointless to me. We're now approaching a global population classification. Deal with it.

>>4424344
Holacanthus 'townsendi' = H. ciliaris X H. bermudensis

>>4424345
how are we even human if we have the DNA of primates in us, everything falls apart when you start to say we are all the same because we have some similar traits or were mixed at some point.

>A particular area of concern is in the genetics of human behavior. As genes that may influence behavior are identified, allele frequencies are often compared in populations67, 68. These comparisons can produce useful evolutionary insights but can also lead to simplistic interpretations that may reinforce unfounded stereotypes69. In assessing the role of genes in population differences in behavior (real or imagined), several simple facts must be brought to the fore. Human behavior is complicated, and it is strongly influenced by nongenetic factors70. Thousands of pleiotropic genes are thought to influence behavior, and their products interact in complex and unpredictable ways. Considering this extraordinary complexity, the idea that variation in the frequency of a single allele could explain substantial population differences in behavior would be amusing if it were not so dangerous.

>Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities. Furthermore, by offering the means to assess disease-related variation at the individual level, new genetic technologies may eventually render race largely irrelevant in the clinical setting. Thus, genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both illuminate and defuse the race issue.

from
>>4421520

>>4424344
Dogs and wolves im pretty sure.

>>4424346
that wouldn't make sense at all.
in fact that's not at all what I claimed.

so it seems you didn't understand.

If aliens visited Earth and studied apes, they would no doubt categorize human "races" under different subspecies just like we do for other animals. We have different wolf, wild cat, bird, deer etc etc. subspecies confined by regions (e.g. arctic wolf and eurasian wolf) that are able to reproduce with each other.

A mongoloid and a negroid are clearly different subspecies of homo sapiens. We don't say that because we are clouded by social morality that comes from emotional judgement rather than logical.

>>4424349
>>4424343
still meaningless. taxonomy is quite arbitrary and can be fitted around any number of ways to suit different hypothesis. stop crying

>>4424356
I'm not crying, I'm trying to get anons to see past the supposed breeding test to what actually constitutes a species.

the delineation is arbitrary, but it has little to do with the ability to breed and a lot to do with the practice of breeding.

>>4424355
and yet your own example shows that taxonomy is a tool that can be flipped around to suit several different frameworks. the majority of biologists, genetists, anthropologists , etc. are just fine with our current classification system. i'll take their words over some random asshole on the internet anyday.

>>4424360
clearly its up for debate and the fertile offspring theory doesn't hold in all cases. no big deal. i see little reason to start seperating humans either on a research or social context.

>>4424345
>How will you even test for the *ideal* African specimens?

This is pretty much the pinnacle of African specimen. It even says so in the picture!

>>4424362
it's a decent test in mammals, but the vast majority of animals aren't mammals.

>>4424350

That's my point, we're only "separate from primates" because we've defined human and primate. In actuality there are thousands of various organisms between each of the species we've codified, each with many different genetic make ups that could have been their own species.

We've defined sub-species as a basis for comparison. If you want to start defining races as sub-species or perhaps introduce a new term for what races are, if you claim to know what a race is or will be, that's fine, but you will have to change its application throughout all of taxonomy and include what has been previous excluded for all species.

>>4424361
No. Human races are the only exception when it doesn't apply. I already explained why: social reasons. We have come to accept it because saying anything otherwise might hurt someone's feelings, as is evident here in your post.
>i'll take their words over some random asshole

If someone from the outside, i.e. an alien, was to categorize humans, do you think they would give us the same benefit of doubt? I don't think so.

>>4424367
objectively there's some morphological basis for naming subspecies or species of human, but again, as long as nothing prevents us from interbreeding, and we have interbred, discrimination at the species level is impossible.

this is because for species, and most subspecies, different populations must be physically unable to breed... whether because they're too different, or separated by an ocean they can't cross, or whatever.

Also, take this into your thoughts:

"Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer."

Humans will soon (if not already) no longer have meaningful barriers between populations.

>>4424367
well your jimmies are a little rustled so i'll try explaining it again. certainly outside observers could try classifying us differently based on superficial differences such as melanin and skull structure but it would be superflous to do so after they got a closer look at our dna and our geography. moving south to north, its not like skin colors suddenly and drasticaly change. its gradual and slow. there are no races, only clines.

and stop crying because someone on 4chan insulted you.

>>4424377
i thought this was common knowledge. who cares?

>>4424363
dude what the FUCK

>>4424382
if it was common knowledge this thread wouldn't exist and it certainly wouldn't be as huge.

>>4424384
this thread exists because bored stormfront fags want to start a shit storm over how the muslims/blacks/mexicans/whatever are taking over their country.

>>4424386
that too
I've been here too long to care about stormfags though. I'm more offended that much of /sci/ can't explain something as simple as how we decide what is a different species and what isn't.

>>4424378
>and stop crying because someone on 4chan insulted you.
Hmm, did you perhaps quote the wrong person? It was in fact this person >>4424361 who got emotional enough to use insults in his post. You should address him.

>but it would be superflous to do so after they got a closer look at our dna and our geography.
Is it also superfluous to say that the treatment for cancers such as leukemia is based on the patient's race/genetic makeup?

>>4424388
>disappointed
why? everyone here is a pure 100% asshole. this site has sucked away so much of my fucking time because i spend it here watching these morons in amazement. it's like watching the whole cast of jerry springer try to outdo itself in stupidity everyday. no one really comes here to learn. it's just an anonymous way to vent and blow off steam. no one here is edgy or misunderstood or even particularly interesting. it's just mounds of shit and babies crying out for someone who shares their opinion. and deluding themselves into thinking their part of a community. it's disgusting. if you expect to have a deep conversation here, you've already lost.

>>4424386
>stormfront
>want to start a shit storm over how the muslims/blacks/mexicans/whatever are taking over their country.
They got a very good reason for that, don't they? No one can even deny that unless you were a non-white immigrant in their country trying to stop yourself from being deported out.

>>4424391
before we carry this sparring on, let me say that i agree that its helpful from a medical context to consider a persons genetic background but that it's silly to extrapolate that into behavior and other kinds of stuff when we don't have the data for it. it's premature to start seperating people into races.

>>4424385

Thanks for the picture.

I have kind of an interest in primitive people. And I was actually just reading parts of a book about the pygmies of Africa. I wouldnt be surprised if the author is that white fellow in the picture.

In exchange here is a picture of an Ainu man. They lived in Russia/Japan for thousands of years before the modern asian japanese people.

>>4424393
perhaps.
I've seen some shit here though.
people in industry stopping in for qna's, researchers blowing embargos on work that got national headlines, projects started here and finished in the literature.

it's rare but it happens... or it used to happen.
I don't know, /sci/ isn't really my board anymore. It has more potential than most though.

>>4424399
i actually am. I'm a brown american whose parents are from pakistan. My father is a doctor and came here for his residency and me and my siblings grew up and studied here. problem?

>>4424402
go to reddit if you want that stuff.

>>4424393
Relax, son. You should take some time off, cool off your hot head, and study capitalization in the mean time.

>>4424405
ok

>>4424391

>We know his mother is 50% Middle Eastern and 50% Northern European. His father is 25% African, 25%, Native American, and 50% Asian.

>Doctor, how would he respond to treatment [x], which apparently is different enough that we don't prescribe it to all races as a way of hedging our bets?

>>4424400
>it's silly to extrapolate that into behavior and other kinds of stuff when we don't have the data for it.
We have no data on the mental capabilities of many animal subspecies and how they're in relation to each other, yet we categorize them.

>>4424407
thanks for proving my point. every post is just " hahah faggot you are so dumb and i am so smart, if only more people in the real world loved me, hurrr". it's worthless.

>>4424413
actually we do. for example we are confused about how to classify tarsiers since we can do it on either a behavioral or genetic context. classification is quite a difficult subject and one method can make you miss out on a lot of nuances. stop thinking you have the answers to everything.

>>4424414
of course it's worthless.
if someone actually looks here for substance they're told to go to reddit.

so long as you send serious posters away and respond only to shitpoasters you can't really complain about the shitpoasting.
it's your fucking fault this board sucks when you're here.

>>4424417
thats the way it should be. 4chan is better as a place to vent and blow off steam than be a place for actual discussion. i hate being an anon and doing stuff without recognition. thats why i prefer reddit.

>>4424422
I've never been to reddit so I don't really know.

anon trolling is good fun though.

>>4424403
You didn't need to say the obvious.

The enemies of "scientific racism" are always the ones who feel they're at a disadvatange in the matter. Your feeling, however, doesn't give you the moral right to suppress scientific research.

>>4424388
Two reasons for that.
1. Very few biologists on /sci/.
2. How we define species is actually pretty fucking arbitrary, because there aren't sharp boundaries between species.

Reproductive isolation is the closest thing to a real criterion, but it doesn't work with ring species, or with organisms that don't interbreed in the wild but can breed (or be artificially inseminated) and produce fertile offspring in captivity.

Variability in DNA sounds like a good way of defining species, doesn't it? Actually, it sucks. There are species (like Sorex araneus) where members of the same "species" don't even have the same number of chromosomes. There are species with more genetic variability within the species than within entire genera. Genetic similarity doesn't align nearly as well as you'd expectwith ability to interbreed, much less with actual appearance.

I'm not even going to get into epigenetics.

>>4424425
its not research i'm "suppressing". i'm debating the conclusions we arrive at through that research. learn the difference.

>>4424422

God Reddit sucks. I witnessed the rise and fall of Reddit first hand.

The whole notion that visibility should be determined by popularity is philosophically flawed. On reddit if you dont join the circle jerk, you are not visible in the community.

Thats why 4chan works. People are honest. Honesty appears. Visibility is determined by effort. If you have something awful to say, people have to see it and deal with it.

>honesty, credibility
>4chan

LOLOLOL what?

>>4424426
thanks for the lesson, when I was in school genes hadn't been invented yet.

sarcasm aside, ~99% of species are extinct and we don't have genetic material from them.

also the breeding test obviously doesn't work on extinct animals.

species are still erected largely on morphology, and generally when average morphological differences exceed expected individual differences and those of dimorphism.

the breeding rule is useful on some extant species, but not really required.

and yes, it's an arbitrary call. Erecting and synonymizing species is the cycle that keeps biologists from getting bored.

>>4424436

I dont mean honesty in that, what people say is 100% true and factually accurate. I mean honesty as in what the communnity is, and what is expressed is 100% honest and uncensored. Its what people want to say.

As for credibility I didnt use that word.

Also, yes, I am an astronaut.

>>4424416
>actually we do.
Actually? So it's a fact we have ran extensive tests on countless of wild animals and put them in order based on their intelligence? Which one won between a polar bear and a brown bear? Surely you know since they must have done so much research for having put them under different subspecies.

Newflash: from the outside most subspecies of animals display almost identical level of mental capabilities. We haven't actually sorted out whatever minimal differences may lie hidden, despite of that we already categorize them under different subspecies based on their appearance and region.

>>4424428
>i'm debating the conclusions we arrive at through that research. learn the difference.
And I'm saying you will ALWAYS debate the conclusion because you're biased and would rather want nothing unwanted to be ever revealed.

>>4424448
>i am too stupid to read things and understand them.jpg

yes, environment and behavior is one of the many things we can classify animals on.

>>4424448
I'm currently working on completing Buckland's classification of animals by flavor.

I'm starting at the top and working down, it just seems prudent.

>>4424452
>you're biased
First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

>>4424453
>environment and behavior is one of the many things we can classify animals on

that would be TWO things, dear anon.
interestingly neither of those things is used to classify animals.

>>4424453
Thanks for making the case for me. Humans should be categorized under different subspecies for the very same reasons.

>>4424452
and i disagree that i'm biased because i understand the importance of genetics in medicine and research. However we are irrational creatures and inherently biased . therefore we should be able to debate the conclusions we infer from data without crying bias .

>>4424458
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

its called a grade classification dumbass. compared to clade classifications which are based on evolutionary history. lrn2biology faggot.

>>4424466
ah shit!
you're an idiot.

grades are still based on morphology, just like clades.

grades just ignore convergence, e.g. whales might be grouped with fish in a grade system because of similar body shape and organs.

I teach biology... mostly on /sci/.

>>4424469
ah shit! no you are!

clades are based on evolutionary history
grades are based on ecology/behavior

stop crying you fucking wikipedia contributer.

>>4424474
I'll call bullshit, though I suppose you kids might have invented a new meaning for 'grade' since I last studied anything.

I doubt it though, since behavior and environment are too variable to classify anything by and you seem kinda stupid.

>>4424479
and i call bullshit on you as well.

>>4424482
fair enough.
I don't think it matters since grades are failed clades, so whatever you use to describe them, they aren't accepted by the community.

you may classify animals by environment and behavior all you like, your classifications will be ignored.

>>4424462
Coincidently you happen to be a Pakistani and arguing against "scientific racism". As I said, I guessed that beforehand. I completely pulled it out of my ass. Come to think of it, I'm such a good guess maybe I should try the lottery. Or maybe, just maybe there is a pattern I saw between non-white immigrants arguing against "scientific racism"? Very plausible.

So you know, if you want to talk about objectivity, tell me the next time you hear about a non-white immigrant who isn't against "scientific racism". I would like to witness that.

>>4424502
fuck off stormfag, we're talking science in your thread.

>>4424502
Only white people and Japs argue for scientific racism. But no, clearly it's everyone else who's biased. If only those dirty foreigners were as objective as you are. Sadly, intelligence correlates very strongly with skin melanin levels, both of which are caused mostly by genes, with virtually no environmental effects from education or ultraviolet radiation.

>>4424502

Science says that western Europeans share more genetic closeness with Africans than someone from Pakistan would... How does it feel to be closer to a nigger than someone who you like call a sand nigger? What makes it really funny is how there is no sand in Pakistan.

- love A Serb who is sick of hateful and violent right wing Americans and all the divisions they love to create between people.

isn't it funny how all the "Muslim" terror groups that actually do real terrorism are all bankrolled by Washington? Meanwhile in America - "i hate sandniggers because the tv told me to!!"

nuke 4chan, save the Internet.

>>4424530

lol... and someone on /9rk/ said there are smart people on /sci/ -- LOL.... you are so retarded, I felt myself get dumber reading your post.

>>4424539
>Serb
>Doesn't hate Muslims
I would hug you, if you weren't on the opposite side of the Internet.

>>4424530
I suppose kiddies on 4chan know better than Harvard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we4ZzjKxFHM

Don't bother watching, I doubt you are capable of understanding what you would see anyway. Just grab on the guns you own and blow your own brains out for the good of man.

>>4424566
In that post, I argued that education has no effect on intelligence and tanning has no effect on melanin levels.

If that didn't come across as obvious sarcasm, I don't know how to make sarcasm obvious.

>>4424565
I am friends with an Armenian that doesn't hate Turks... how bout it!?

Long live USSR!

>people think even classifying people into different groups is racist

i dont think anyone even knows what racism means any more.
racism is discrimination against someone based on their races, "scientific racism" doesn't exist, what the fuck are you on about?

>/sci/ in charge of knowing biology

/S/ci
>in charge of easy science

on sub saharan africans are different

Holy fuck! A Klein Bottle~!
> Wait, OP posted some /pol/ shit?

i guess to some extent,
technecally each individual is some sort of subspecies of our own
but you must understand each race is only a very small %age different from eachother

species, no - subspecies, to some extent
theyre more of a sub-sub or sub^3species from eachother

yes each race is a different sub species, it's just PC crap that has made this illusion of a singular race.

sure is /pol/ in here

I'm pretty sure species would be pushing it, but we are definitely atleast different subspecies.

>>4421264
>source: linneaus 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae
>Using Linneaus 1758 as a source for species classification
LOL, wow.

>>4421294
>difference in bone structure, muscle structure, facial structure, brain size, etc isn't enough?
Wow, pulling things out of your ass are you?
>Implying any of these differences don't vary over a spectrum within ethnic groups ("races").

The lines of race are not drawn in a scientific way. For instance, people of mixed European and African ancestry are usually just categorized as "black".

It is conventional to regard all surviving humans as members of a single subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens, whereas all other subspecies, such as homo sapiens idaltu, are now extinct.

There are no strict rules for defining species and subspecies, the lines are drawn according to loose guidelines and become accepted as convention. Neanderthals are regarded as a separate species, yet we clearly interbred with them, and their genes are still significantly represented in the modern population. Chihuahuas and Great Danes are regarded as the same species and subspecies, despite the obvious differences and mating incompatibility.

There's really nothing to say on the matter, but that it is not conventionally accepted to regard different human races as different species or subspecies.

>>4427863
>>Implying any of these differences don't vary over a spectrum within ethnic groups ("races").

hurr durr

they on average more different between races

>>4427883
>and their genes are still significantly represented in the modern population.
except for sub saharan africans

This thread is teetering precariously close to a eugenic conversation.

/sci/ fails once again.

>>4427885
Citation fucking needed. I.e.: you wrong.

Species don't exist. They are an attempt to categorize life, but the species model fails over and over when life is observed closely enough. It's a concept leftover from primitive ancients that scientists are too stupid or lazy to move past. All that exists are individuals (and even that gets blurry when you consider all the relationships we call symbiotic or social).

Of course races don't exist either. They're an even cruder attempt at organization.

So yes, different races could be classified as different species or subspecies. In fact any two individuals could be classified differently, it just depends on what classification rules you make.