[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 39 KB, 288x240, aboriginal-vs-slav.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4574295 No.4574295 [Reply] [Original]

/pol says Aboriginals are different species of human and that this picture proves it. I don't believe it, but can anyone refute this?

>> No.4574298
File: 91 KB, 706x720, 1333240864279.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4574298

I think the definition of a species is that the members can interbreed, and the offspring can also breed.

>> No.4574299

Yea, they're pretty much a different species. Brutes.

>> No.4574300

>species
>defined by morphology
>2012
lolno

>> No.4574315

>>4574300
paleospecies are defined by morphology.

not that aborigines are extinct.

>> No.4574324

>>4574298
that certainly isn't the definition of 'species'
it's a fair description of many mammalian species.

>> No.4574335

>>4574315
I beg to differ. Morphological characters aren't the only ways to classify paleospecies.

>> No.4574339

>>4574335
lecture on if you wish. I'm listening.

>> No.4576115

>>4574295
I'd rather see a comparison that doesn't have it alongside a short-as-fuck slav skull.

I don't know if they'd qualify as a different 'species', but aren't they pretty genetically distant from other human types?