[ 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: 578 KB, 640x640, niggest.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7232858 No.7232858[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I am waiting.

>> No.7232865

>>>/pol/

>> No.7232878

>>7232858
But it's a human. I would guess homo erectus?

>> No.7232879

>>7232858

Sub-species of human

94% of the human genome can be compared across the races

6% of the human genome is different between races

>> No.7232881

>>7232865
>>>/9gag/

>> No.7232884

>>7232879
sapien/neanderthal=96% similar, so

>> No.7232888

>>7232858

>it looks different than me
>must be not human
>aryan musta race

>> No.7232891

>>7232881
racism goes to >>>/pol/

>> No.7232900

Not racism. I am showing just one extreme in the continuum of human phenotypic variation in order to inform. This IS a human.

>> No.7232914

>>7232900
if this is a human than what are white people?

>> No.7232916

>>7232900
Well thanks for sharing OP, you really informed us there. Good work on the title too. Maybe post a pic of yourself and challenge us to find anything recognisable as human.

>> No.7232928

>>7232914
also humans
polymorphism is a wonderful thing

>> No.7232929

I didn't know that it was possible to be literally black.

>> No.7232930

>>7232928
Nah, fuck OOP

>> No.7232960

>>7232928
then why are wolves and dogs different species? theyre more similar. i don't get it. if some people actually mixed with a different species, like neanderthals or desonovins and melenasians or whatever, then how are they still the same species they were before inter-breeding with another separate species? it doesnt work that way in any other part of the animal kingdom.

>> No.7232968

>>7232960
this

>> No.7232969

>>7232960
Because wolves and dogs are not more similar

>> No.7232975

>>7232960
because biology is retarded

>> No.7232976

>>7232960
because you are trying to categorize based on morphological differences
species is determined by fertility: the guy in OP's pic and a human female can mate and produce fertile offspring, which is why he has to be a human(as in homo sapiens sapiens) male, even though you and he look(probably) different.

The same is the reason why all dogs are the same species but different <span class="math">breeds<span class="math">. All dog breeds can produce fertile offspring, but a dog and a wolf can't, which is why we say that they are different species.

whether or not fertile offspring can exist differs. Some species are still very closely related which is why they can still produce fertile offspring.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem))[/spoiler][/spoiler]

>> No.7232985

>>7232976
fuck, the part after breeds is supposed to be:
All dog breeds can produce fertile offspring but a dog and a wolf can't which is why we say that they are different species
whether or not fertile offspring can exist differs.Some species are still very closely related which is why they can still occasionally produce fertile offspring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem))

>> No.7232986

>>7232976
>the guy in OP's pic and a human female can mate and produce fertile offspring
i like how you imply that the guy in OP's pic is not a human

>> No.7232987

>>7232858
>>species - a category including closely related, morphologically similar individuals which actually or potentially interbreed
to summarize, he can breed with a human female and posses the same anatomical structure as a human, therefore he is a human.

now stop with the shitposting

>> No.7232989

>>7232976
What did you just do to my page view you attention-whoring cuntface.

>> No.7232996

>>7232976
Beefalo, a cross of an American bison and a domestic cow. This is a fertile breed

>> No.7233004

>>7232884
Neanderthals are humans.

>> No.7233008

>>7232996
as i said in >>7232985
the line is not exactly clear
sometimes two species can have fertile offspring.
Question is: do they naturally mate (with natural I mean the male bison has both female bisons and female cows, does he mate with the cows (nearly) as much as with the bisons) or is it the product of artificial insemination?

>> No.7233009

That's why I live math: All is clearly defined.

The problem here is obviously, that some understand under "human" something different as other. I really doubt that it is even possible to give an well defined definition of "human".
The boundaries are blurred (see e.g. embryo).
For me personally this guy sails close to the wind

>> No.7233014

>>7233009
>I really doubt that it is even possible to give an well defined definition of "human"
it's not just a clear definition of "human" but also a clear definition of "species"

>> No.7233016

>>7232987
By your definition a man with a genetic disease who is genetic unable to mate isn't a human?

>> No.7233019

>>7233008
see>>7232987

>> No.7233020
File: 24 KB, 640x606, 1425012047987.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7233020

>> No.7233022
File: 96 KB, 375x444, jew.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7233022

Math is for faggots. It deals only with values, and at the subatomic level values negate and invert.

Aside from ourselves, everything is "Other" faggots.

By that logic, then Jews are both an ethnicity and a nationality and an ethnonym.

JewZ goona JeW

>> No.7233029

>>7233016
>> morphologically similar individuals
similar doesn't mean identical.
>> actually or potentially interbreed
as in has the ability to interbreed, if said ability doesn't function for whatever reason, be it physical, genetic or otherwise, the definition still applies

>> No.7233034

>>7233009
Nothing but maybe maths can be perfectly defined, not only are word's boundaries blurry but they're also defined recursively through other words, rendering complete, non-circular defining impossible.

>> No.7233035

People who say humans are the same species/race doesn't exist do so on ideological principle.

Different groups within species diverge, this extreme is an example of possible divergence which given sufficient time would become a separate species.

This doesn't mean this species is inferior or superior in an objective way but that to argue against the classification or to refuse to make a distinction is absurd to me.