/sci/ - Science & Math

>Siberian Tiger
It is Amur Tiger, AMUR TIGER, what's so hard to remember, shitlord? Missubspeciate me one more time and you're a dead man, cis scum

>>9785953
There were other species, most famously Neanderthals. It just so happens that we are the last one left and the diversity of humanity (i.e. races/ethnicities) is more like dog breeds and by far not distant enough to justify any further differentiation.

>>9785985
>There were other species, most famously Neanderthals.
But they weren't a sub species, which was what OP asked.

>>9785985
Modern humans are hybrids.

>>9785953
Because there is more genetic variation within tigers than humans.

>>9785953
Onegeneticistwas sceptical of this study and maintained that the currently recognised nine subspecies can be distinguished genetically.[17]

In 2017, the Cat Classification Task Force of theIUCN Cat Specialist Grouprevised felid taxonomy and now recognizes the tiger populations in continental Asia asP. t. tigris, and those in the Sunda Islands asP. t. sondaica.[18]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger

they're all the same species, one subspecies on a remote island

>>9785953
There are different definitions of subspecies. Some of them might be applied on humans some not. If one wants to be very precise about classification, he needs another sublevel for every trait.

So if you really wish to classify homo sapiens into subspecies you could start with pigmentation. Be wary that humanity is strongly interbreeding therefore you're going to find a shitload of individuals that might not fit into your definitions.

>>9785953
Because unfortunately people who are highly interested in the categorization of humans have an ulterior agenda.
Btw, what is a subspecies? Not a bio/zoologist. Are you?

>>9786876
*unfortunately MOST people

>>9786876
Not OP but from Wikipedia "subspecies refers to a unity of populations of a species living in a subdivision of the species’s global range and varies from other populations of the same species by morphological characteristics". Humans fit into this perfectly

>>9786892
>subspecies refers to a unity of populations of a species living in a subdivision of the species’s global range and varies from other populations of the same species by morphological characteristics
Humans don't really have subdivisions though. Bengal tigers and Siberian tigers never interact with each other in the wild. Humans on the other hand are constantly mingling with each other. And if you consider the sheer morphological variation, there must be hundreds of subspecies with all the mutts and half breeds. It's just not a useful idea to go through the motion of fleshing out.

>>9786900
Why wouldn't aboriginals be a separate species from other humans, considering they were separated for tens of thousands of years, look very different, different culture, etc

>>9786914
Completely new person but aboriginals wouldn't be considered different species because they can produce fertile offspring with other populations of people. Although that isn't the best argument since many try to differentiate species with DNA analysis which is a bit more vague.

>>9786914
I meant subspecies. Not species.
>>9786924
>Completely new person but aboriginals wouldn't be considered different species because they can produce fertile offspring with other populations of people.
Many of our food crops are formed from hybrids. A good example is the orange (Citrus maxima and Citrus reticulata).

As for animals, Bonobos and chimpanzees are another example.

>>9786945
They would have only been a subspecies up until contact with whites/asians/polynesians (I dont know strayan history).

>>9787119
>white argentinian

>>9787119
Real caucasians

>>9786876
yes, only the other side has ulterior motives. most definitely not the side who's trying to ignore and deny reality

>>9787245
Your “reality” is arbitrary categories based purely on: superficial characteristics, perceived cultural differences. Vastly overemphasizing the differences while ignoring anything else.

>>9787245
What? That's not what I said at all. Nice power level.

>>9787261
Don't bother trying debate them. Their ideology is built around pseudoscience, and rejects scientific research. They will simply scream "LEWONTIN'S FALLACY" if you point out genetic variation.
They are not interested in actual debate. They're already convinced they're right, and will ignore all evidence to the contrary. They are no different from advocates of cold fusion.

>>9787416
What is the genetic variation between bonobos and common chimpanzees (two separate species)?
How does that compare to the genetic variation between two groups of humans, say aboriginal Australians and Native South Americans?

>>9785953

How is culture a racial trait?

>>9786876
>scientists should lie because people might misinterpret the truth
Rigorous

>>9785953
the term "species" and taxonomy in general is a man-made construct, not really found in nature, that allows us to categorize things better into boxes.

Genetic/phenotypic diversity is primarily a gradient as you go back to ancestors, and even in today's world the term species is loosely defined and fails on edge cases (ring species being the classic example).

It's for convenience more than anything, and so we can define however we want as whatever we want, and that includes ignoring the idea of human subspecies because 1) it doesn't really make sense, as taxonomy is to help us with classification and we don't need that with humans (plus a myriad of actual reasons, such as globalization mixing what were distinct geographically-separated people, leading to the idea of subspecies breaking down almost immediately), and 2) it's a garbage dump of a can of worms that all the idiots will run with, and 3) would literally serve no purpose scientifically.

>>9787245
This.

>>9787416
All I hear form this garbage statement is
>HURRR don't debate with them because science isn't on our side on this issue and we will lose and look stupid DUUURRR

>>9788061
are you really this stupid? adult male pygmies for example are on average 150 cm tall. This is obviously going to be reflected in their architecture. a people's architecture is a part of their culture.
This shows that one's racial characteristics influence their culture.

>>9786924
Homo sapiens and neanderthal could also produce fertile offspring. Different species but same genus.

>>9788250
This post is bait.

>>9785953
>having much different cultures?
Are you suggesting certain animals have "much different cultures"?

>>9788252
Neanderthals are different from homo sapiens even just going off of bones so they're really really different

>>9788266
are you suggesting they don't?

>>9786807
>if you really wish to classify homo sapiens into subspecies you could start with pigmentation
Or you could start wit lactose tolerance, in which case, "African" Americans are white.

>>9786914
>different culture,
If you're not even going to pretend this is about /sci/ence, just go back to /pol/.

>>9787416
>They are no different from advocates of cold fusion.
Max kek.

>>9788268
>are you suggesting they don't?
>implying tigers have culture
We lost another one to Disney/Pixar.

Taxonomical labels are that, labels. Certainly there are physically identifiable differences and criteria by which we may separate species and subspecies, but the reason that we do so tends to be for the convenience of identifying common phenotypes, geographical distribution, ancestral origin, etc.

It is of no debate that the ancestral origin of some people is closer to the ancestral origin of other people, or that there are concomitant phenotypic variations well-documented in medicine, like the frequency of some diseases among other things, that exist in people of some ancestral extractions more commonly than others.

The reason we don't use the taxonomical classification of subspecies that we label animals with for convenience is that human classifications have a meaning and a relevance outside of the biology or taxonomy book, as we understand by a history in which those classifications were used as the basis to legislate differently and endow more or less rights to some groups on the basis of these biological, or pseudobiological classifications (I say this because there isn't and wasn't in the past a single consensus classification scheme for human "subspecies," which allows for arbitrariness in classification.)

Because as a scientific community that is part of greater human society we believe that, even if ancestral extraction has a certain predictive power (which is always disputable and difficult to ascertain because gene-environment interactions are hard to pin down and quantify) we should safeguard the rights of every Homo sapiens so that they may reach whatever their potential is, we abstain from making those classifications to protect their human dignity and prevent previous trespasses upon that dignity from from becoming reality once more.

>>9788250

What? Everyone has their own style of architecture. So every region is its own race?

>>9788305
That would also mean Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian architecture were produced by three different races.

Because humans are uber special, obviously. This is the case of exceptionalism which, ironically enough, can be traced back to Abrahamic religions.

>>9788319

That's exactly what >>9788250 is implying.

>>9788333
>
I'm witcha, Trips-Anon.

>>9788064
I didn't say anybody should lie, or even that racial differences shouldn't be researched. My point was that any research is likely to be misused by ideologues.

>>9786003
It depends who you ask as to whether neanderthals were a subspecies or not.

>>9788267
Dogs are a subspecies of wolf yet have very different bone structures

>>9788247
*snap*

>>9785985
Dog breeds FST: 0.33
Source: https://www.princeton.edu/genomics/kruglyak/publication/PDF/2004_Parker_Genetic.pdf

Human FST: 0.15
Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;300/5627/1877b

So in short - your analogy is a retarded one. Domestic dogs have far greater genetic diversity than humans.

>>9785953
The weird thing is every human right now is already a subspecies of homo sapiens, so biologist would have to invent a smaller genetic grouping then subspecies to even explain human diversity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

Race is a real thing if we go by the starting date of the cranial features of every human meaning the biological race begins around 54,000 B.C meaning the african negros right now are multiple races since their physical traits existed since 100,000 B.C not a single monolithic black race.

Despite racial traits across almost every aspect of physiology being both glaringly obvious and well documented clearly this stops at the brain and there are absolutely no differences between brain structures of different races.

>>9786914
>tens of thousands of years
Thought it was less the 15k, even then that's only 5% of all human existence (300k years)

>>9789336
Physical characteristics are irrelevant. What matters is genetics.
>>9789319
There is not enough genetic diversity to warrant subspecies because we went through a genetic bottleneck that brought down the global population to about 10,000 people. Additionally, there has been continual interbreeding among populations. If you actually want to create racial classifications as something below even subspecies, you would come up with 6. 5 of them would be Africans and the 6th would be LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE.
Humans have the lowest genetic diversity of all great apes. A group of 54 chimps living along both sides of a river in Cameroon have more genetic diversity among them than there is in the entirety of the human race.
Thus, there is no grounds for dividing humans up into subspecies. It would be arbitrary.

>>9789503
Physical characteristics are decided by genetics you fucking retard. Are you being dense on purpose?

>Thus, there is no grounds for dividing humans up into subspecies. It would be arbitrary

The difference in a tiny chromasome determines the huge differences between male and female, yet a 15% genetic difference (That is fucking huge) between races is inconsequential and arbitrary? Fuck off

>>9789514
Compared to every other great ape, yes, it's inconsequential. Or would you advocate that domestic dogs, with an FST of 0.33, should be divided into multiple subspecies as well?

Does anybody know of a book explaining the origin of homo sapiens, the geogrphic distribution of other homos and ho was evolution made from neanderthal/cromagnon to sapiens? You are allways talking abou this but never seem to link sources.>>9785985

>>9789599
Ah I'm glad you brought up dogs. Between breeds there is an a 100% measureable and well documented difference in intelligence levels. Tell me, at what point between 33 and 15 percent do you draw the line for genetics determining intelligence?

>>9785953
Humans probably could (and should) be characterized as one species. Homo sapiens is polytypic, however -- meaning that we have distinct subspecies. Anyone who says otherwise is doing so for political reasons, and they are not motivated by truth or science.

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

>>9789744
Source?
Also, intelligence is only about 50% heritable in humans. The rest is environmental.

>>9789753
>50%

>>9789751
>1975
Try again.

>>9789757
Twin studies are junk.
https://rpadgett.butler.edu/ps320/coursedocs/Richardson-Norgate.pdf

>>9789758
>"Modern geneticists don't agree, guys."
This must be why 23 and me is so successful.

>>9789753
There is countless articles on dog intelligence, look it up yourself you lazy cunt, or even better have a walk down to the dog park and observe dogs that are clearly more intelligent than others.

>>9789758
>third edition was 1998
So this is the power... of a double digit IQ...

>>9789760
An elaboration on things - it's not a political agenda.
https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/4333/1/01lieb.pdf
>Occasionally a student will suggest that the race concept has been rejected because of political correctness arising from the horrified reaction to the holocaust in World War II Nazi Germany. We must acknowledge that political correctness is a generic aspect of human behavior. Without conformity to group expectations human societies would be anarchies devoid of cultural patterns. An example of the negative consequences of political correctness is seen in the widespread belief that there were superior and inferior races. Colonialism, involving the conquest, exploration and slaughter of millions of people in the Americas, Africa and parts of Asia was rationalized by the belief in the inferiority of the alleged races inhabiting those areas [COCKER 1998]. The rejection of the race concept by most anthropologists beginning most recently in the 1960s, was based on the genetic evidence reviewed earlier. Conformity to political correctness was not the cause of these changes; rather awareness of the uses of race in colonialism, slavery, segregation, and in the holocaust stimulated reexamination of the race concept using the new genetic data that was accumulated throughout the 20th century. The presence of new genetic data does not guarantee that the data will be given careful consideration. This consideration came about as a new generation of anthropologists with new biographical experiences entered the discipline and examined the new data that developed during the century. Those who characterize these developments as political correctness are using simplistic reductionism, and a naive conception of science in an ivory tower. Scientists must struggle with and develop new data in the context of biography and history.

>>9789767
>Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>thinks this trumps https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787 in which a modern geneticist makes the case that homo sapiens is polytypic

When did this board get so anti-science? Was it when all of the Redditors migrated here?

>>9789769
>Woodley
No. I know of him. He is full of shit. He's a literal white supremacist. Additionally, you will need more than one peer-reviewed research study to support such a bold claim.

>>9789769
It's actually a lot better than it usually is. I'm actually really surprised at the ratio of /pol/shits to actual /sci/bros in this thread, it's usually a lot worse. I remember famously going round and round with some asshole, where I showed him all the evidence that shows rightfully that there's no non-arbitrary way to genetically/mathematically divide races into coherent groups that actually fit our modern perception of race, and thus while race isn't necessarily useless as a concept (and is real in a sense), it's a social construct and is non-scientific. At the end he argued that there should be some kind of counsel of people who decide which phenotypes should be weighed more heavily than others in terms of genetic differences to create the groupings, at which point it was hard to say anything to how retarded it was. The mere fact of arbitration solidifies it absolutely as a socially constructed definition with criteria set on what was deemed by society to have different weights, rather than actual genetic differentiation.

Anyways, I got a bit off topic. Race is real in the sense that it obviously exists as a way we divide people, and can be really useful in a lot of ways. As a rough, sort of statistical estimation of heritable medical traits, for example, there's use in tracking racial data in hospitals. Still, it's a social construct so any discussion of it probably belongs more on /his/ than here.

>>9789800
> that there's no non-arbitrary way to genetically/mathematically divide races into coherent groups that actually fit our modern perception of race

Right, so then how does any ancestry test work that can tell the percentage of racial based genetics you have work? Doesn't sound fucking arbitrary to me.

DOES ANYBODY KNOW OF A BOOK EXPLAINING THE ORIGIN OF HOMO SAPIENS, THE GEOGRPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF OTHER HOMOS AND HO WAS EVOLUTION MADE FROM NEANDERTHAL/CROMAGNON TO SAPIENS? YOU ARE ALLWAYS TALKING ABOU THIS BUT NEVER SEEM TO LINK SOURCES
I AM ASUMING YOU DONT AS YOU DIDNT REPLY EARLIER. THANK YOU FAGGOTS KEEP TALKING SHIT.

>>9789767
you are proving his point, faggot

>>9789312
That proves his point, retard. If all dogs are the same species and have more genetic diversity than humans, that means clearly humans are not different enough to warrant separate species.

Anyway, a species is defined as a group that can mate to produce fertile (keyword) offspring. As /pol/ will remind you this works between races.

There’s simply not enough significant genetic and behavioral differences between the “races” to justify separate species.

>>9788222
Right. A lot of taxonomy is itself arbitrary. And it gets worse when you get to below the species level. If you look at the definition of most animal breeds, you'll notice they are entirely phenotypical. That is to say as long as a breed registry is open, any animal that has certain picked traits, regardless of heritage, can be considered to be a member of that breed. That's how races are defined in practice now, as some socially-defined selection of body characteristics which one must have some preponderance of in order to be recognized as being a member of that race.

But that does not make for a taxon. One of the major principles of modern taxonomy is that all taxa should be mono- or at least para-phyletic. That means that any clade should share a most recent common ancestor. As far as we know, while there are bottlenecks, no commonly-understood racial group has this. Instead, all of them came about as groups of genetically distinct humans migrated to different areas, and then adapted convergently.

It is also true that most of the features commonly thought diagnostic of race are actually clinal with latitude. That is to say they become more or less common depending on a population's distance from the equator. That does not make for neat racial classes at all.

Ultimately, you can define a race, but any such definition will be so arbitrary as to lack much descriptive value.

this thread is bait and was made by one of the low iq tiny-dicked white nationalists from /pol/

>>9791747
Species? No. Subspecies? Yes.

>>9785953
>How can animals have different subspecies
They don't. Most biologists don't think subspecies is a real thing. It doesn't have a real solid definition. The handful of biologists who do define it as "geographically isolated subsets of the same species." So white Americans and black Americans would not be considered different subspecies.

>but humans are just one species,
You were talking about subspecies, and now you're talking about species? Nice try, faggot.
Depends on how you define "human". If you define it by species, then of course there's only one species. If you define it by the genus "homo", then there's only one because all the other ones died.

>despite looking pretty different and having much different cultures?
The handful of biologists who do believe in subspecies would never use "it looks different" as a dividing line. Plenty of dogs look very different yet don't get their own subspecies. Fat people with black hair and blue eyes look pretty different to a thin green-eyed blonde.

>>9789744
You realize that's an argument _against_ your position, right? If dogs aren't different subspecies, yet they have a measurable difference in intelligence, why would a measurable difference in intelligence in humans be grounds for making blacks a different subspecies?

>>9785953
You know why

>It's another episode of retarded racists and PC police with no knowledge of systematics trying to discuss the taxonmic classification of humans on the linean hiearchy
How about you read a book instead of arguing about things you obviously don't know the first thing about.

>>9792079
yeah all domestic dogs are canis familiaris descended from canis lupus

>>9792634
https://youtu.be/c7puPXZVsFQ

>>9792644
you probably know even less than the rest here so you stfu
>muh get a book

>>9792660
That video is talking about some arbitrary group of breeds, not the actual fucking breeds.

>>9788267
>even just going off of bones
You can tell a human's race by their bones. The fuck is your point?

>>9792847
Just wanted to share this interesting pdf related to this topic, which I've read a few days ago. https://anthropology.si.edu/writteninbone/comic/activity/pdf/Identify_ancestry.pdf

>>9786007
black ppl do NOT have neanderthal DNA. They evolved differently.

>>9792847
No you can't. I was told that was pseudoscience in university.

>>9793801
yes you can. Ask a forensic pathologist

>>9793859
so it's ethnicity you can determine not race because is not well defined
I guess that's what they were telling me in first year bio

>>9793865
>ethnicity
No, you have it backwards. Race can be determined NOT ethnicity.

>>9793872
lots of people consider ethnicity to be race
really the only way to delineate between groups of people genetically is haplogroups
race has many meanings

>>9793875
ethnicity: German and Austrian
they have different ethnicities, but they are both white. Their race is white.

Hmm housecats differ from eachother too. You got tabby, tuxedo, calico, exotic, persian etc. but they are all same species.

>>9793878
I don't really know much about this but I'm pretty sure I'm right. In my bio class they had short blurb about how the major races like Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc. don't really exist

>>9785953
Blacks do NOT have Neanderthal DNA. We evolved differently. A black,asian, or Arab person will NEVER have blues eyes, unless they are mixed with white DNA.

>>9793881
You are not right. White ppl are the only group that carries the genetic marker for Blue eyes....

White is a race. Whites evolved separately.

>>9793888
well i do know the blue eyes is a single recessive allele with mendelian inheritance
so that's literally one gene out of millions, that can't be enough to define a race

>>9793894
its shows that white evolved differently.

The shape of the head, eye color, hair color, skin color, etc

Just going by looks, its obvious white is a separate race.


One gene out of a million that black ppl do not have. why? because white ppl are a different race.

keep in mind this is one gene we know about b/c we can see it.

>>9793894
and recessive doesnt mean rare.

In germany and sweden, blue is the dominant eye color

>>9793894

evolution = mutation

>>9793801
>>9793865
obvious /pol/ falseflag
please try not to take the b8