Are we really all the same species?

[Anonymous No.8406354]

[Anonymous No.8406365]

>>8406354
If nothing ever died. Just about every sexually reproducing thing would be the same species.

[Anonymous No.8406412]

>>8406365
Even if that were true they'd all be ring species and only eventually capable of gene flow.
There are still isolating events, such as polyploidy, that can result in genetic isolation from the parent generation or any behavior or physical attribute that prevents coupling with the previous generation and is sudden in its onset.

You can probably get from asexual to sexual organisms if you mix and match your species definitions but that's probably pretty pointless.

>>8406354
Yes, by most definitions.
You can try to argue "Muh subspecies" if you really want to try to make yourself look like an idiot but that's just taxonomy.

[Anonymous No.8406457]

Too much variation within each "race" for an accurate definition of sub species.

[Anonymous No.8406460]

>>8406412
Did you see the picture?

If you don't call this speciation, what would you call it? Subspecies is a step down from species. Another word for the same concept would be "breed" or "race". Basically a word describing two diverging populations that have not completed their mitosis yet.

[Anonymous No.8406468]

>>8406457
But a German is more like a fellow German than an Aboriginal, correct?

[Anonymous No.8406480]

>>8406468
of course but the variation between them is still too large for an accurate definition of sub species. The gene pool is too large for each race/ethnic group. Dogs on the other hand have small gene pools, very little variation and are nearly identical. i.e degenerative bone conditions are prevalent in dog breeds because of the lack of genetic variation.

[Anonymous No.8406481]

>>8406354
Species: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

The answer would be yes.

[Anonymous No.8406491]

>>8406480
There is a tremendous variation between the races though. You're wrong about this.

You may have a point when talking about closely related ethnic groups within a race. But the races are very distinctly different across the board. Like comparing an apple to an orange to a pear

[Anonymous No.8406504]

>>8406491
what i said was there is too much variation for there to be a REALISTIC definition of sub subspecies. You'd would have to divide up the different races, which granted, do have massive differences to one another. then you would have to divide each race into sub groups, and then sub groups and so on because, and i AM right on this, there is simple too much variation for a simple cut and dry DEFINITION of different sub species/breeds of human. It becomes a redundant point.

[Anonymous No.8406507]

>>8406504
So define a sub species, and then something under that.

Or simply use the terms "race" and "ethnicity", which serve that exact function. Once distinguishes the major continental population groups, the other minor breeds within each population group.

[Anonymous No.8406527]

>>8406507
I see the logic in that but though the variation is there it isnt enough for different sub species to be easily named. Just because there are differences in physical shape does not mean that genetically an aboriginal is that dissimilar to a German. We have only existed for 200,000 years. thats not long enough for difference, easily definable sub species to emerge. Come back in 2 million years and we will talk again.

[Anonymous No.8406544]

>>8406507
Race is the layman's term for subspecies.

[Anonymous No.8406567]

>>8406491
>Like comparing an apple to an orange to a pear
A better analogy might be comparing a red sweet apple to a green sour apple to a yellow apple.

[Anonymous No.8406573]

>>8406491
The problem id that in almost all cases there are no obvious boundaries. Every ethnic group bleeds into all the others. Sub species require obvious demarcation in genetics or habitat or behaviour to be distinguished from other subspecies and humans don't have that. Abos are maybe the only group that could reasonably be separated out

[Anonymous No.8406582]

>>8406354
Species?
yes
Race?
Not really a well defended scientific term
Genetic population?
Nope.

[Anonymous No.8406614]

>>8406491

>Like comparing an apple to an orange to a pear

Way too invalidate your entire post anon. Apples, oranges and pears aren't even in the same species.

Did you even bother to do research on your attempted "comparison" before you posted?

Races are just bottlenecked sub-populations separated by time/region. It is effectively like taking the seeds of an apple from one country, isolating it in another for a few hundred years (but still allowing marginal crossbreeding between nearby regions) and doing it again several more times without letting any of the regional "variants" achieve true seperation.

[Anonymous No.8406631]

>>8406544
>>8406460
Except that all modern humans are considered part of the same subspecies as well, Homo sapiens sapiens.