[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 29 KB, 630x650, nature-siberian-neanderthals-17.02.16-v2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9128220 No.9128220 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

A dog and an ape are separate species because they fill different roles ecologically, can't produce fertile offspring, and are genetically dissimilar.

But some species can produce fertile offspring, and create a hybrid.
>60 ka Homo sapiens who leave Africa in this wave may have interbred with the Neanderthals they encounter

Most non black people have some Neanderthal DNA. And Neanderthals were a separate species. Why?
If ancient homo sapiens could fuck neanderthals, why would they be considered different species?
If non black people are neanderthal hybrids, why aren't they classified as separate from people who didn't interbreed with neanderthal? And why aren't Denisovan hybrids separate?

If we could breed with them just fine, why wouldn't they just be classified as different ethnicity's?
Modern Homo Sapiens ethnicity's fill a niche, why aren't they all classified as different species?

according to this, Tibetans are better adapted to their climate through genes picked up in denisovan. That makes them genetically different than say, a black person living at a very low elevation. And they fill a niche.
Why are they still the same species? Interbreeding apparently isn't necessarily strict in defining a species.

To bring it to a less-racist sounding place, why are all dog breeds, Canis familiaris? Most fill a different role, are genetically dissimilar, and some can breed but others can't. Why isn't a little froo froo dog a different species than a great dane?

Assuming humans keep evolving through genetic drift or whatever, how long until an Inuit and an Aborigine are different enough to be considered separate?

If we start fucking with our genome, how different until that's considered a new species?

>> No.9128229
File: 130 KB, 450x701, gameOver.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I'm not racist, but

>> No.9128236

>Why are they still the same species? Interbreeding apparently isn't necessarily strict in defining a species.
There is no strict definition of what a species is. The boundaries are always fuzzy. Nominal boundaries are drawn based on biologists' improvisation, as all strict definitions break down in edge cases. The interbreeding thing is a good first stab at the problem and a good approximation, but it's not the end-all be-all of it.

>> No.9128244

We aren't the same species. Research on these subjects are suppressed because of all the Jewish influence.

>> No.9128265

people will get butthurt when you proof that they are a different species, because they think that one species must be superior. they can't imagine that there are different human species, but the differences are pretty small and have no real impact in real life. people don't want to accept that others are better so they get mad and tell everybody that you're racist to make them feel better.

to answer your question, yes there are different human species but this doesn't imply that one is better then the other.

>> No.9128266

This is the fundamental challenge of taxonomy. The real question is what practical function you need your classification to provide.

Regarding dogs, the idea of a "ring species" might be useful.

>> No.9128294
File: 105 KB, 900x900, thoughty2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

DON'T Watch This Video!
>Hey Thoughty2 Here

>> No.9128710

The line between different species is arbitrary. In some cases there are good borders to seperate them, sometimes not, the cant breed thing is just a rule of thumb,we know of ring species such that A can breed with B, B can breed with C, C can breed with D and D can breed with A, BUT A cant breed with C and B cant breed with D. where exactly do you draw the line between A and B? are they the same species? then why cant A breed with C but B can?

Humans being a species or not is entirely based on social bullshit, there are reasons to say they are different species and reasons to say they are the same. in the end its all just arbitrary labels we use to classify shit with fuzzy borders. obviosly there are differences between populations that some political groups dont want to admit to, but there are many species with diferent subpopulations. remember that species is just one step on a long ladder of labels used to classify lifeforms. There are categories both above and below it.

>> No.9128760
File: 75 KB, 800x546, d521a59a5887326dd91d9b3f672ae169.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Humans & Neanderthals are the same Species but different SUBspecies.
Human races are also different SUBspecies :
Nordic White, Arabs, East Asian, Black African & Abo are the main branches.
Secondary branches are:
Mediterranean White = Arab + Nordic White.
Finn or Slavic White = 80% White + 20% East Asian.
Indian Pajeets = Abo + White.
Southeast Asian, Polinesian & Injun = Pajeets + East Asian
Mulatto = White + Black
Mexican = Injun + Mediterranean White

>> No.9128781

>Humans & Neanderthals are the same Species but different SUBspecies
stop trying to act like subjects being debated at this very moment are settled. Humans (im assuming you are using this to mean Homo sapiens) & Neanderthals are still in limbo between different species and subspecies

>> No.9128949
File: 135 KB, 1440x1080, 1503519664897.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Absolutely WRONG, at least learn some archaeology and taxonomy before you spew your uninformed bull shit.

>> No.9129000

>Most non black people have some Neanderthal DNA. And Neanderthals were a separate species. Why?
Because male offspring of human and neanderthal was infertile

>> No.9129115
File: 183 KB, 1096x1098, human_genes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Genetic clustering shows that we are very homogeneous for all genes, with a few exceptions. Milk drinking and skin color, mainly.

There's just no reason to define different human races, since we are so genetically, morphologically and behaviorally similar. Any given human has only 15-20% of similarity between humans of the same group. So if person from group A had, say, green ears, there is more than likely than person from group A will have blue ears, and person from group B will have green ears.

Curiously, there was another race of humans. They were almost anatomically like us, but had cavemen browns and were a bit bulkier.

>> No.9129144

Top of his class right here

>> No.9129150
File: 776 KB, 2484x1696, fkufyjg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It's settled. Humans & Neanderthal are capable of interbreeding (do sex generating fertile offspring). Therefore Humans & Neanderthals are subspecies of a same species.

>> No.9129154

this is correct, but you can still run a k-means algorithm to define some races
it's not settled
male neanderthal + female human produced infertile offspring

>> No.9129166

>male neanderthal + female human produced infertile offspring

>> No.9129169

taxonomy is not a science yet

>> No.9129172

Yes, but that goes towards my second point: Why?

Generally, there's no point. Culture, languages, wealth, those are more important when deciding to classify people.

Genetically speaking, more often than not there is simply no good reason to classify us as different things. For all intent and purposes, treating ourselves like a single race is good enough in the majority of cases.

Unless you are studying sunburns, adult calory intakes, malary data or alpinism I guess.

>> No.9129186
File: 884 KB, 1692x4137, Rosenberg_1048people_993markers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>Some of the genes, meanwhile, appear to have led to fertility problems. For instance, Sankararaman found that the X chromosome is almost devoid of Neanderthal DNA. This suggests that most Neanderthal DNA that wound up on the X chromosome made the bearer less fertile – a common occurrence when related but distinct species interbreed – and so it quickly disappeared from the human gene pool. “Neanderthal alleles were swept away,” says Sankararaman.

+ there are no neanderthal Y chromosomes in humans

basically 'thal-human people were less fit and possibly infertile and only those carrying harmless (straight hair?) or helpful(light skin?) alleles survived
i think it's interesting to try to find the best clustering of humans, purely for algorithmic reasons

though it's pretty hard nowadays(post-colonial times) because half the world moved around and there is new, let's say, ethnogenesis happening in the americas
even before colonial times you have basically mixed populations in central asia, east africa ..

basically you'd need a % - let's say 70% or above ancestry and you are of race X and below 70% you are of mixed heritage?? i guess

it's pretty hard to do it

pic related is the best clustering (k=5), because it also happens to match continents
you'll notice that one of the bedouin sample is more african though lmao (each line is a person sampled if i remember correctly)

a sindhi dude is more than half african, while his neighbor is quadroon asian

but this is the best you can get in terms of races - 5 races, matching continents - caucasian, australian, native american, asian, african
at lower k's or higher k's you start getting weird shit

>> No.9129319

Speciation is poorly defined and pretty much arbitrary. These conversations are pointless. I realize you're just trying to bait people into saying "go back to /pol/," but how about you just fuck off instead?

>> No.9129463

Interesting. As a latino from the caribean with 2 spanish grandfathers, I wonder where the heck would I end up in such classifications.

>> No.9130509

do you have a source for that?

>> No.9130524

That clustering does not match continents. Look at the figure again. European, the middle east, and central asia are too genetically similar to be divided.

>> No.9130541

lots of basic mistakes in your thoughts. yes you're racist you fuck.

>> No.9130695


A species isn't a fundamental physical classification. Past a certain degree of similarity the distinction becomes somewhat arbitrary like >>9128236
said. Sort of like the boundary between language and dialect.

>> No.9130882

>behaviorally similar
Not even trying to troll but have you ever actually interacted with black people?

>> No.9131055

From the usa, no.

From my country, yes, several times. No difference.

Political affiliation and socio-economic status are far more relevant, specially with the donkey commanding our pseudo-communistic disaster of a nation.

Macedonian master race when?

>> No.9131086

More like
>Hey, Forty2 here

God I hate that faggot and his inability to correctly pronounce his channel name

>> No.9131120

Da fuck is that?

>> No.9131240

I find it funny that OP said "i'm not racist, but" and then said some retarded racist shit.
Oh well, that's whats expected from /pol/tards.

>> No.9131252

>that look in her eye

You just KNOW

>> No.9131253


>amazing cross-discipline scientific discoveries about the nature of life

>questions about scientific distinctions and classifications

>completely solid logic and valid question

>retarded racist shit

>> No.9131267

I didnt see anything racist. A common argument for speciation is if it can breed its the same species. The racists are shot down by pointing out negroids and caucasoid Can breed therefore are both homo sapien sapien. Yet the anti-racists (this isnt a compliment) ignore the same reasoning regarding neandrathol.

Starting the discussion off with a standard "THATS RAYCIS", while standard in your antiwhite playbook, is a complete dodge on a clearly hypocritical stance.

>> No.9131307

Species is a pretty fucked concept.
You even have species complexes of physiologically similar organisms that are only distinguishable by rRNA comparison.

>> No.9131840

> yes there are different human species but this doesn't imply that one is better then the other

No, there isn't. The singular species of hominid alive today is Homo Sapiens Sapiens

>> No.9131856


>> No.9131863






>> No.9133458

>There is no strict definition of what a species is. The boundaries are always fuzzy. Nominal boundaries are drawn based on biologists' improvisation, as all strict definitions break down in edge cases.
You're exactly right - same for dog breeds as well.

Funny that this logic doesn't apply for humans though? How the left wants to deny that races are in fact real? Of course modern geneticists refer to the insanely vague term of """""""""""""populations""""""""""""" because it allows them to avoid using such a contentious word as "race", or even more contentious, "subspecies" or "breed".

It really sucks that science is politicised. But it is. And it always will be. Otherwise we'd be able to have a frank discussion about race, and whether racial differences in IQ scores have a biological basis (which they almost certainly do - for instance, Asians have the largest average cranial capacity, and the highest average IQ score, whereas Africans have the lowest average cranial capacity and lowest average IQ score).

Of course I would not claim biology is the *only* factor in IQ because it obviously *isn't*, but it is a factor that exists (and then liberals will say "oh but it's a small difference. Very small difference.").

Science should be un-politicised. It should be a search for the truth.

>> No.9133521

>pic related is the best clustering (k=5), because it also happens to match continents
No it doesn't. That picture says Europeans, Middle Easterners, and central Asians are all the same race.

>> No.9133525


>> No.9133666

The problem with that sort of reasoning is that they *have* done the correlative studies on these things, and as it turns out, the correlations between ethnicity (as a genetic factor) and intelligence fall within the standard deviation, whereas pretty much all environmental factors do not. I.e., literally any study on race vs. IQ is studying a relationship that we know has less meaning than standard of living vs. IQ, place of birth vs. IQ, ambient levels of lead vs. IQ, etc. etc.. So if you're studying race as a factor of intelligence, the ONLY reason you can be doing so is because your motives are 1. you haven't bothered reading existing literature, or 2. you're a racist looking for an excuse (or some combination thereof). In terms of what is actually materially useful science, you should pick almost literally anything else.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.