/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15036833]

Refute this.

[Anonymous No.15036841]

retarded

[Anonymous No.15036855]

>>15036833
there is continuity with few minor exceptions. you can't just say that everyone on the earth is one subspecies while some random isolated islanders are other different subspecies.
and btw the subspecies category is considered controversial and a lot of previous subspecies were changed. e.g. tigers and neanderthals

[Anonymous No.15036897]

>>15036833
There are races. However, it doesn't make me a racist incel.

[Anonymous No.15036904]

Wow, it's almost like taxonomy is artificial and not /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15037000]

>>15036833
Well I am usually on your side but I will take this opportunity to be contrarian and point out that there's a problem with the wolves number : the red wolf is supposed to be an hybrid between grey wolves an coyotes, but he's listed as more distant from grey wolves than coyotes are.
So I suspect these numbers are not reliable.

>>15036855
>>15036904
Cope

[Anonymous No.15037130]

>>15036833
I will not, personally I think it makes us cooler.

[Anonymous No.15037311]

>>15036833
some scientists say there's races and some say there isn't. There appears to be more scientists saying there is not races than ones that say there is. If you need a yes or no answer to something that isn't well defined you would usually take the option with more votes. The people saying no races have more votes. At the end of the day political correctness makes the deciding vote anyway even if it was 50/50, which is that there are no races

[Anonymous No.15037316]

>>15037311
*i probably should have used the word sub-species instead of races

[Anonymous No.15037468]

>>15037000
Is that diagram really up to date? I thought they had more insight about the Basque these days; putting them close to Italians, Danish and English seem weird.

[Anonymous No.15037475]

>>15036833
>t nigger that doesn't understand [math]F_{ST}[/math]

[Anonymous No.15037517]

>>15037311
how can racism be real if race isn't real?

[Anonymous No.15037661]

>>15037468
>putting them close to Italians, Danish and English seem weird.
Native Iberians are of Gaelic admixture, meaning they should naturally be close to people from the British Isles and France/Bretony.

[Anonymous No.15037734]

>>15037311
That's a retarded way to handle science, especially when you're aware political concerns are involved.

[Anonymous No.15037786]

Making something a sub species and not a subspecies is kind of arbitrary. Sub species is not defined by the genetic distance of two sub species. So consider homo sapien neanderthalist. They can breed with us and are definitely they same species as us. But are drastically different. Their main physical difference arent just a slightly different facial structure and darker skin. Would it make sense to call the different human races sub species when one example of one of our subspecies is so drastically different? Look at our other cousins that are sub species of homo sapiens they are hugely different.

[Anonymous No.15037804]

>>15037786
Different bear species can breed with each other, are they mislabeled? There's also natural selection against most neanderthal introgression in a way that suggests a degree of incompatibility that led to reproductive issues in hybrids.

[Anonymous No.15037805]

>>15037786
>They can breed with us and are definitely they same species as us
The current consensus is that they are a different species. And different species can have fertile offspring : wolves and coyotes for example.

[Anonymous No.15037816]

>>15036833
All humanoid beings are considered humans. Distinct races exist, and you could even call them sub species if you want, but the term human is broad and includes all homo sapients.

[Anonymous No.15037824]

>>15037816
>>15037311
>>15036904
absolute state of the faggots on this board, like 50% redditors

[Anonymous No.15037830]

>>15037824
How am I a Redditor?

[Jealous No.15037839]

You should not change the semantics to suggest the existence of human subspecies because it's normal for a wolf to eat a coyote.

[Anonymous No.15037844]

>>15037830
First off, I replied to 3 different posts, there are no ID's on this board and you didn't say which one you were. Assuming you are the latest poster, saying "we are all human beings" as a reply to a post about subspecies is completely meaningless.

People saying that taxonomy and giving terms to different species and subspecies is meaningless is only a result of it clearly going against the soiy mindset of human equality.

>>15037839
Plenty of animals eat there own species, this has no bearing.

[Anonymous No.15037845]

>>15037734
What else do you do if you want a yes/no answer? Which is what people seem to want. The alternative would be to pick the option with less scientists agreeing on it

[Anonymous No.15037851]

>>15037845
Do you think science is a democracy? Do you even have a source saying most disagree if that was the case?

[Jealous No.15037853]

>>15037844
I think you mean it has no bearing in your opinion.

[Anonymous No.15037855]

>>15037853
I think you mean:

>You should not change the semantics to suggest the existence of human subspecies because it's normal for a wolf to eat a coyote. in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.15037879]

it's rude and interferes with global governance goals

[Anonymous No.15037921]

>>15037661
>Native Iberians are of Gaelic admixture
The basque language is an isolate, and last time I heard about their origins, they were one of the very earliest groups in Europe. How then can they be related to Iberians?

[Anonymous No.15038027]

>human global population
8,000,000,000
>Territorial range
6 Continents

vs

>Eurasian+NA Grey Wolf population
200,000-250,000
>Territorial Range
3 Continents but highly fragmented outside Canada.
>Red Wolf population (Endangered)
250-350
>Territorial range
1 Continent
>Great Lakes Region Wolf (at risk)
4,000
>Territorial range
1 Continent
>Coyote population
1-10 million
>Territorial range
1 Continent

Truthfully your chart should be invalidated for including the red wolf and Great Lakes Wolf due to extremely low population genome (those two are on the brink of extinction). Outside that my assessment would be that the overall lower population and Territorial range of said Wolves and Coyotes is the reason for the lower genetic distance between them. I'm not sure if the comparison is a suitable enough argument for subspecies classification.

[Anonymous No.15038081]

>>15038027
The reason doesn't matter.
It remains that they're more related than humans groups but classified as subspecies when humans are not.

[Anonymous No.15038123]

>>15036833
>Refute this.
Scientifically cannot.

There are many sub-species of humans.

It is only recently that people want to deny this, just like denying genetics when it comes to gender.

[Anonymous No.15038125]

>>15036833
>hands begin rubbing while kvetching

[Anonymous No.15038147]

>>15038027
Population sizes and whether or not different species or subspecies exist on multiple continents are not arguments for or against taxonomy. If you think they are, you're retarded. If you think anything you posted is an argument against different human groups being classified as distinct subspecies, you're extremely retarded.

[Anonymous No.15038699]

>>15036833
There is nothing to refute. Subspecies are poorly defined and arbitrary classifications we use for simplicity. Not even the wolf subspecies in the image are set in stone and have been widely argued about for decades. Not even the debate of whether or not domestic dogs and wolves are the same species is fully settled

[Anonymous No.15038822]

>>15038699
So true. Blacks will once again likely be classified as a separate evolved species. It's all arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.15038845]

Would gingers be a race? howabout albinos
or sub-species you know what i mean

[Anonymous No.15039073]

>>15038822
Nobody is gonna split humans up into different subspecies, and even if they tried it’d never pass through any publication body

[Anonymous No.15039170]

>>15037844
>only a result of it clearly going against the soiy mindset of human equality
Biologist cope.
You will never be a real scientist.

[Anonymous No.15039172]

>>15038123
It's doesn't matter how I classify my porn. Taxonomy is not a science.

[Anonymous No.15039174]

>>15036833
>biologists should recognize human subspecies
>as long as it supports my nazi beliefs, otherwise we should ignore it

[Anonymous No.15039177]

>>15039073
I split humans into three species and 6 subspecies (africans (capoids, negroids), eurasiamericans (aryans, asians, americans) and australians) and I just published it on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.15039179]

>>15039174
>>as long as it supports my nazi beliefs, otherwise we should ignore it
What are you alluding to ? Any classification supports nazi beliefs.

[Anonymous No.15039215]

>>15039172
Taxonomy in it itself isn't a science, it's apart of biological science. Every single biological journal uses taxonomic terms, and by your defintion, do you see the phylogenetic tree of life as pseudo? You mean subspecies isn't scientific, not taxonomy itself. Taxonomy verified by phylogenetic analysis is scientific, regardless of semantics.

[Anonymous No.15039218]

>>15039215
>You mean subspecies isn't scientific, not taxonomy itself.
What makes subspecies unscientific compared to the other taxons ?

[Anonymous No.15039371]

>>15039215
but that would imply that biology is a science.

[Anonymous No.15039377]

>>15039215
>biological science
Lmao

[Anonymous No.15039397]

>>15036833
There is no way to refute it, scientists are dishonest evil bastards.

Side note, let us look at kin selection in evolutionary game theory and computational models of ethnocentric cooperation.

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

https://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Now you can see that it is abundantly obvious that genetic distance has a direct role in group success, the more related the group, the more successful they will be.

[Anonymous No.15039400]

>>15036833
Subespecies and you can find a lower echelon in bees

[Anonymous No.15039406]

[Anonymous No.15039622]

>>15039179
It doesn't but they think they do which is why they are pushing this all the time.

[Anonymous No.15039638]

>>15039622
>oy vey its anti-semitic to be consistent with scientific classification

Eat shit and die

[Anonymous No.15039652]

>>15039377
What makes biology unscientific? Biology is a science that combines other natural science disciplines into a novel discipline, but it could also refers to life itself.

[Anonymous No.15039662]

>>15039218
Alright, to explain it simply, it's somewhat strange for all taxon to have subspecies.. As an example, the Loxodonta cyclotis (african forest elephant) clade in the Guinean rainforest compared to the Loxodonta cyclotis clade in the Congolian rainforest has an estimated divergence of 700000 years, but yet, they aren't subspecies. It was once considered that Loxodonta cyclotis was a subspecies of Loxodonta africana (L. africana cyclotis/pumilio), however, genetic analysis has revealed the L. cyclotis to be closer to the Paleoloxodon genus, particularly to the P. antiquus, rather than to L. africana (con-gener). Either that invalidates the Loxodonta and/or Paleoloxodon as valid names for the respective genera, or it means their history is more complex than previously believed. Turns out, the west africa (Guinean) clade of L. cyclotis hybridised with P. antiquus (& vice versa) during the Pleistocene, leading to incomplete lineage sorting (the placement of Loxodonta cyclotis closer to Paleoloxodon). The Loxodonta is valid (monophyletic), but there needed to be an acknowledgment of Loxodonta cyclotis being a separate species, and so they were officially named as separate in recent developments (by the IUCN).

[Anonymous No.15039673]

>>15039662
So you are saying hybrids are their own species?

[Anonymous No.15039676]

>>15039662
In another case, the Acinonyx jubatus has 4 recognised subspecies (jubatus, hecki, soemmeringii, & venaticus), but how many of these are valid? Well, they are technically valid in the sense of being geographically partitioned. Upon closer examination (via genetic distance/Fst), the distances are so close and the approximate divergence so recent, that there is no consistency with how other comparable taxa are described (to the ssp. level). The Non-SSA (Eurasian) Homo sapiens clade ane the SSA (African) clade of Homo sapiens have a more deeper divergence than Acinonyx jubatus venaticus relative to Acinonyx jubatus hecki. It's not a stretch to say there exists human divisions (i.e. race, in a sense), but there must be a fundamental restructuring of other subspecies for human subspecies to be valid. Differences in morphology, phylogeny, and even behavior are metrics in the delineations of taxon to the subspecific level, with some differences being slight, and others being major. Don't be deceived by Syncerus caffer nanus being lesser and phenotypically disparate from the nominate Syncerus caffer caffer, for the genetic distance between them is so recent, it can be traced to single migration events from savanna to rainforest. Whereas the Diceros bicornis michaeli compared to Diceros bicornis longipes may not appear too distinct from one another, they are attributed with a deep divergence (nearly a million years time) that could make them separate species.

[Anonymous No.15039685]

>>15039673
Partially, hybrids are indeed considered separate taxa by ecological conservation standards, and many taxon originate via hybridisation. The Dryopteris carthusiana is a known case, in the wikipedia article for the respective species, it states "It is a tetraploid of hybrid origin, one parent being Dryopteris intermedia, known in North America as the intermediate wood fern, and an unknown, apparently extinct species dubbed Dryopteris semicristata, which is also the presumed parent of the hybrid-origin Dryopteris cristata.", proving there to be substantial derivation of currently extant taxa from hybrids, including extinct taxa that contributed to taxon of hybrid origin.

[Anonymous No.15039688]

>>15039638
Nazis aren't consistent with science. They are consistent with their own reality. Science is only valid when it's in their favor.

[Anonymous No.15039689]

>>15039688
>so therefore inconsistent classifications need never be addressed
>because nazis are apathetic

Each and every degree closer to absolute consistency is a gain

[Anonymous No.15039699]

>>15036833
In the case of humans genetic distance is a measure of bottlenecks given these "species" formed just about 80k years ago at most. The more bottlenecked a population is the less their genetic diversity and the greater their genetic distance.

Wolf species coalesced millions of years ago, their speciation (in America) isnt due to a bottleneck, but due to geography. We see this in that coyotes, mexican wolves, grey wolves, etc. all had overlapping geographic ranges in the precolumbian era and all share some ancestry. In fact Mexican wolves have about 10% coyote dna.

[Anonymous No.15039705]

>>15039699
Dr. Valerius Geist implied there wasn't a "pure wolf" in North American populations (NAGW clades e.g. lycaon, nubilus, baileyi, occidentalis, arctos*) of wolves (excluding arctos*), ostensibly due to all the Canis latrans admixture in the Holocene NA Canis lupus.

[Anonymous No.15039714]

>>15039688
Funny how they bandwagon on science when it comes to arguing with trannies and non-binaries, but disband the wagon when it comes to genetics and race.

[Anonymous No.15039722]

>>15039685
https://uk.inaturalist.org/taxa/82564-Dryopteris-carthusiana
One can check the differences of these taxa compared to it's interspecifics of the same genus, and there is barely any phenotypical contrast (at least from my perspective, but also in accordance to naturalists who observe them).

[Anonymous No.15039726]

>>15039689
>>Each and every degree closer to absolute consistency is a gain
Sure when it is in your interest.

[Anonymous No.15039737]

>>15039726
You are a piece of shit

[Anonymous No.15039789]

>>15039699
>The more bottlenecked a population is the greater their genetic distance.
Huh ? That doesn't make sense...

>Wolf species coalesced millions of years ago, their speciation (in America) isnt due to a bottleneck
Grey wolves were bottlenecked in siberia something like 40000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.15039867]

>>15039662
there are bigger inconsistencies in species themselves than this, like three Himalayan geese who interbreed perfectly fine but not in every combination, so they're all separate species

you're arguing against taxonomy essentially, just to uphold the political circus around humanity

[Anonymous No.15039890]

>>15039714
Classifications of male and female are as simple and easily discerned by science as classifications of subspecies. It's not the own you think it is to bring that up, it just proves them right that science is uncomfortable admitting facts.

[Anonymous No.15039939]

https://eeb.princeton.edu/news/study-darwin%E2%80%99s-finches-reveals-new-species-can-develop-little-two-generations#:~:text=as%20two%20generations-,Study%20of%20Darwin's%20finches%20reveals%20that%20new%20species%20can,as%20little%20as%20two%20generations&text=The%20arrival%2036%20years%20ago,in%20which%20new%20species%20arise.

Okay so what about Darwin's Finches, how do they fit into these taxonomic frameworks? Apparently a new species in just two generations.

[Anonymous No.15039946]

>subspecies
Not well defined, irrelevant
>coyotes and wolves are different species
Apparently they can have viable offspring (coywolves), so they're actually all members of the same species, just like all humans are. If they're not considered to be, this is a mistake in their taxonomy which should be corrected.

[Anonymous No.15040002]

>>15039946
What if the definition of species is simply altered to accommodate this? There are many ways to address the inconsistencies in this very made up jargon.

[Anonymous No.15040050]

>>15039946
>>subspecies
>Not well defined, irrelevant
>>species
>Not well defined, but let's just pretend otherwise

[Anonymous No.15040370]

>>15040050
Congrats you've figured out what pilpul is.

[Anonymous No.15040614]

>>15036833
Imagine unironically confusing 'species' with 'breed/race'.

Taxonomy is not science, it's a categorization tool that science utilizes to compartmentalize broad concepts.

[Anonymous No.15040619]

>>15040614
>'breed/race'.
is blacks breed da pitbull yo?

[Anonymous No.15040622]

>>15040619
lol