Are niggers a different species?

>>16714704 (OP)
actually humans are one of the most genetically homogeneous species that exist. this is because we've been to the brink of extinction several times. having more or less melanoma on your skin doesn't make you a different species

>>16714704 (OP)
You do realize species/subspecies/race is a made up category right?

>>16714708
Name one category that isn't made up.

I'll wait.

>>16714710
my dick in your mouth

Humanity is extremely geneticly similar. All people share 99.9% of their DNA.

>>16714711
u mad bro

if u live in a black majority country u are not a nigger u just dark skin

>>16714710
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

>>16714716
>In 1973, André Lagarrigue’s team at CERN used the Gargamelle bubble chamber to demonstrate the existence of weak neutral currents. This result made it possible to unify, within a single theory, two fundamental interactions that had previously been thought to be distinct: the electromagnetic force, responsible for attraction and repulsion between electrically-charged particles; and the weak force, responsible for beta radioactivity. The development of this “electroweak” theory led, a few years later, to the establishment of the Standard Model, which was complemented in 2012 by the discovery of the Higgs boson, and describes all of the particles and forces that make up and govern known matter.
Still waiting

>>16714708
>stop noticing patterns, goy

>>16714722
Umm... nothing in that paragraph refutes my example. Try again

>>16714725
I can make up arbitrary species by "noticing patterns" too. There's the species of democrats and a separate species of republicans. There's a species of people who own bitcoin and those who don't. And so on.

>>16714726
Learn to read

>>16714735
big mad? Which part refutes my example, exactly?

>>16714736
the one where they made it up

>>16714738
?? It was discovered, not made up.

>>16714743
lmao

>>16714745
Cope more, racist. You got btfo

>>16714731
Those aren't biologically innate characteristics though. You're just arguing in bad faith to be a faggot.

>>16714710
Male & female. To assert these categories are made up is to support the trans agenda and eschew the binary nature of sex
>Derrrr *hiccup* we could've called those categories anything, gotcha!
The categories exist regardless of what we call them. Your move, tranny

>>16714749
>biologically innate
This isn't really a thing. Biology deals with emergent phenomena, so it's not "innate" anything.

Here's an easy way to see that species is made up.
P1. Every organism is the same species as its parents
P2. All organisms descend from a common ancestor
C1. Therefore, all organisms are the same species

>>16714748
It's made up. The standard model isn't written down in the fabric of the universe. Just a bunch of apes on earth putting pen to paper you moron.

>>16714757
>The standard model isn't written down in the fabric of the universe.
It literally is the fabric/stuff of the universe out of which your pens, papers, apes and earths are made up of. You are engaging in denial.

>>16714756
P1 is clearly proved false with the existence of sterile male ligers.

>>16714758
No you are engaging in dishonest misrepresentation of the connection between reality, observed reality, and our model of reality

>>16714764
The reality is the standard model particles. Your cope is that they are just models in your head (which is made out of those particles btw).

I got cancelled from academia due to this very topic so here is my answer even though I don’t think anyone from this thread is ready to accept, not at least in this generation. Let me give you a generic answer (answering most of the misconceptions in this thread) and if it gains interest I will provide more information.

Humans are in fact 99.8% similar in regards to our DNA. Genetic differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation. Differences among major groups account for just 3-5%.

Subspecies sharing the overwhelming majority of genetic variation and only a few percent of the variation accounted for by between group differences is the standard for every single species on the planet. 3-5% of the total genetic variation being accounted for by intergroup differences is standard when comparing different subspecies let alone race. To say humans are "99.9% genetically similar" without context is a specifically misleading statement within biology. Humans share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and 99% with Neanderthals. A 0.001% could be important depending on the kind of genes. 30-40% of our genome affects brain development and the idea than any two groups with any distance at all will independently evolve identical group average capacities is ludicrous.

Despite the fact the "lines" between racial(subspecies) groups at their genetic borders is somewhat fuzzy due to introgression and hybridization, this does not invalidate the main groups existence as a valid and useful category just as the few percent of Neanderthal DNA present in Caucasians and Asians does not mean that the species Homosapiens as a group doesn't exist. Introgression and hybrid speciation is common in nature, such as wolf subspecies hybridization and introgression with domestic dogs.

(cont)

(cont)

At the end of the day not only can you categorize humans into 5 races, those races would be classified as subspecies if it weren't for a combination of humanities arrogance to place ourselves above phylogenetic classification. There are more politics involved for this travesty and why people are so in the dark about anthropology. I am not sure you are ready for that answer either so to avoid my comment being deleted I will stick to biology. The fact that we cannot talk about this openly should actually make you more suspicious why you know so little about the facts I aforementioned and why they choose to silence any dialogue about it.

The instant the races become phylogenetically grouped, as with every other subspecies and biological group on the planet; habitat encroachment, demographic replacement, excessive hybridization, all indisputably become a threat to the existence of a given group these acts are committed against. The only justification required for that group's particular survival is existence for existence's sake. Nature needs diversity for diversity's sake as means for protecting itself against black swan events in ecosystems. In mixed populations, if a threat shows up the outcome would be catastrophic for all species. The same way the extinction of the black rhino through interbreeding, out breeding and habitat encroachment by the white rhino would be a tragedy without needing to say the black rhino is "superior" to the white rhino.

>>16714769
>does not mean that the species Homosapiens as a group doesn't exist
It doesn't mean that it exists either. Anyone who doesn't find this grouping useful can just deny it, since you admit that these categories are defined based on their "usefulness", a completely subjective thing depending on your interests, biases and agendas.

>>16714779
What a useless response.

>>16714785
Not any more useless than the post I responded to

Lewontin's Fallacy and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>16714788
Black people are different. Deal with it. To say they aren’t different is even racist, to deny them their distinctness. How dare you.

>>16714791
Why is pol always right

>>16714797
You and I are different, so we're different species and I don't care about your species.

>>16714791
Don’t blame the Jew. Blame the white race the Jew bred into. For some reason white people (including Ashkenazim) just hate themselves, and are far too nice for their own good, trying to see the best in all, even when there isn’t much good out there. This is why immigration happens. Because white people (and Jews) think that black people and Muslims are just as capable and worthwhile as white peoples / white immigrants. They’re notz

Humans aren’t all the same. Don’t deny me my racial stereotype you son of a bitch. I am NOT like white people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#The_species_problem

>It is difficult to define a species in a way that applies to all organisms.
>The problem was recognised even in 1859, when Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species:
>I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.[78]

>>16714704 (OP)
>>16714769
>>16714771
What again is the point, besides trying to justify racism?

>>16714836
What? You really can’t separate wanting to know something from being hateful? Science isn’t racist. It’s like getting angry at IQ tests — yes you can find gripes with the IQ testing that traditionally favors reaction times — but you can’t find gripes with the basic fact that biological variance doesn’t just stop once it reaches the brain.

The reality =|= the testing =|= the people

The (racist, hateful, supremacist, etc) people doing the testing regarding the reality are the problem. Not the reality. The testing can be compromised by the people. But the reality is just the reality.

>>16714704 (OP)
They're a different subspecies, which was synonymous with the word "race" for many years. But not anymore, for some reason. So now, due to linguistic drift, we have retards either saying
>erm are they a different SPECIES???
or
>EVERYONE is EXACTLY the same on a genetic level!!

>>16714836
Maybe understanding why biracial kids cannot accept blood donations from either parent and striving to find ways to mitigate it? If you genuinely see only negatives from acknowledging genetic differences across subgroups of humans, that exposes nothing more than your own racism.

>>16714836
You’re asking what’s the point of science. We try our best to observe the world for what it is regardless of our preferences or what’s comfortable so that we can ascertain theories that help us explain the universe. Understanding how, say, eugenics works doesn’t mean justifying its practice, as while there are clear benefits to understanding and utilizing it, there are non-scientific factors that make it undesirable when applied in most ways to humans.

>>16714827
The distinction of species is arbitrary, but the standards we hold the distinction to are not. So, under the current definition of species Africans are a subspecies. If you deny this, then you have to deny the existence of subspecies in general because that's how every other subspecies is classified.

>>16714894
*definition not distinction

>>16714805
It’s a first world vs third world issue is all. First worlders grow up soft from their soft environment, and cannot help but assume that, just like everyone they’ve met in that environment, everyone from every environment shares a fundamental way of being. They’re ignorant to the capacity for differences in someone from a truly alien place, growing up with completely different values sets and expectations for the people around them. A person that has never earned their land of plenty, and was simply born into it, can’t comprehend what it took to build it, and give it away freely thinking there’s enough for all. We’re well past the time of white picket fences, and places like America will only continue to be brought down towards the global average as they attempt to bring everyone up to their national average.

>>16714894
Last bio class I took was high school, many years ago. I understand the classification of species—organisms that can produce offspring with each other. I can also understand the need for a subspecies classification, such as donkeys and horses which are clearly different. What I don't understand is how a subspecies is defined. To me it makes sense to define subspecies as members of a species that produce sterile offspring. So mules are sterile meaning donkeys and horses are subspecies. Lions and tigers can make male tigons or ligers which are always sterile (but I guess the females are fertile?) this sounds like it could be another version of subspecies.

This sounds like an objective definition of subspecies. I assume it is not the one used. Why?

>>16714902
>To me it makes sense to define subspecies as members of a species that produce sterile offspring. So mules are sterile meaning donkeys and horses are subspecies. Lions and tigers can make male tigons or ligers which are always sterile
Lions/tigers and horses/donkeys are not subspecies, they're different species species altogether. Subspecies are defined as geographically isolated sections of the same species which are able to cross, but typically don't unless there's some kind of force driving them to cross. An example might be human mediated migration of the animals due to settlement or something.

>>16714926
Oh I'm dumb lol. Okay so a donkey and a horse actually share the same genus, not the same species. And a tiger and a lion share the same genus but not the same species. Yes I can understand this.

So I think the problem is the definition of species. I would redefine it to include all members of a genus that produce fertile offspring in both sexes. So a Bengal tiger and a Siberian tiger i would classify as the same species (throw out the term subspecies), assuming they can produce fertile offspring. Whereas a donkey and a horse I would label as different species.

This sounds objective and it would placate the progressives since it'd unify all human demographics into one species. It could make taxonomy more experimental than bookkeeping since they'd test whether members of a genus produce fertile offspring.

>>16714902
Yeah, the other response is right. Dogs as a subspecies of grey wolves, but dogs and grey wolves can still produce viable offspring together. Subspecies is sort of loose in this sense, but as the other anon described, it’s typically geographically isolated members of the same species which are able to breed, but typically don’t due to preventative factors such as geographic obstacles, leading to different group features, such as the distinctions between different types of wolves. Some lizards on one side of a mountain range may be darker to match the rocks on that side, and lighter to match the rocks on the other side, which is how these differences start. This is where the argument comes from that by formal definition different races of human can be seen as subspecies, but that term is too loaded to be acceptable outside of a scientific context, let alone within one.

>>16714938
Right so speciation within a species wherein they develop their own variable traits with respect to their own local and environment. And if left alone for many generations, may diverge enough to become a different species. I guess subspecies is a useful taxonomic label. Disregard my previous post

>>16714894
>but the standards we hold the distinction to are not.
It has to be arbitrary because your standards and definitions themselves use more arbitrary terms. Look at the following definition of a subspecies:
>used for populations that live in different areas and vary in size, shape, or other physical characteristics (morphology), but that can successfully interbreed
This contains lots of vague and subjective terms "population", "area" and so on. You could even say that people living in different states in a country form distinct subspecies.

>>16714954
You’re forgetting an “and” there. It’s not just population/area separation, it’s observable population based morphological differences. Humans are definitely an outlier now for how little their location in the world affects their morphology, but the reasons should be obvious. The fact is we have distinct groups adapted to different environments because groups of us came from those environments.

>>16714960
If you take any characteristic and measure it for people of different states, you would get different distributions. That should give you the required morphological differences.

>>16714960
with humans we share environmental resources (food, heaters, AC, clothes, and ideas) across the globe. our anomaly is easily explained by the warped environment we're in

>>16714868
That's about bone marrow donors, and it's not as clear as the races OP describes

>>16714954
>It has to be arbitrary because your standards and definitions themselves use more arbitrary terms.
Not necessarily. For instance laws are arbitrary because they're enacted by humans, but what constitutes as a crime is not. There's no other reason murder is illegal besides that modern humans find it distasteful, but the definition of murder is not arbitrary. It's just a matter of where you draw the line.

>This contains lots of vague and subjective terms "population", "area" and so on. You could even say that people living in different states in a country form distinct subspecies.
"population" or "area" are only vague to you. These have direct definitions in biology. This is merely linguistic sleight of hand trying to muddle scientific definitions with popular definitions.

>>16714980
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of someone. Law is part of the definition of murder, so by your own standard, it's arbitrary
>These have direct definitions in biology
I doubt it, if you mean they can be defined without any subjectivity and arbitrariness.

>>16714965
Right, and I look different from my brother, but we draw the line somewhere else to distinguish groups because it’s a useful classification, whereas what you’re doing is not. “Required” morphological differences are only included in the definition because it makes the definition useful, not because the definition is a some sort of fundamental law. To try and argue that because you can intentionally abuse the criteria for the definition that it is not useful is arguing in bad faith.

What first arose is our observation and a need to classify common traits, THEN we developed names for these classifications to organize and explain relationships between groups. Tearing down the classifications doesn’t build anything, the base need to classify will still persist.

>>16714988
The irony is that this is the kind of braindead faggot who hates the "woke progressives" due to their teardown of biology (like sex being binary), and yet are guilty of the same thing as their boogeyman. It's a hilarious display of low IQ, indicated by abysmal self-awareness

>>16714988
If it's a matter of being useful, I could say that calling Africans a different subspecies is beyond useless to anyone unless they are acting in bad faith (by being racists, for instance). Notice how arbitrary and subjective the subspecies definition has become.
>the base need to classify
1. You don't have to follow your base needs. In many cases, you don't.
2. "Base needs" itself is a very vague and ill-defined term

>>16714986
Ok then there's no other reason killing somebody is illegal while the definition of murder is not arbitrary. There's that linguistic sleight of hand again.

>I doubt it, if you mean they can be defined without any subjectivity and arbitrariness.
There is an entire subfield of biology dedicated to this.

>>16715000
>There is an entire subfield of biology dedicated to this.
And there are entire groups of people coming up with multiple genders, so you shouldn't have any problem with that either

>>16715007
Um wow, strawman much?

>>16714843
Interesting. How far did you get with this truth bomb before they cancelled you? Did they warn you first?

>>16714994
Yeah, so in spite of how by the current definition there are subspecies in humans, we don’t go around using that term, as while the definition is useful in classifying organisms in a scientific context, such as between different types of wolves, we consider it an undesirable and uncomfortable term in the context of people. Language serves a purpose, it’s a means to an end, and we’re not beings that value truth or accuracy above all, we value social cooperation, which necessitates these concessions. Doesn’t make it correct, but it feels right to most, so we go with it.

As for your comments on our base need to classify, you’re again arguing in bad faith. You’ve ignored the merits and applications of classification as an entire concept to instead attack why we should even want to do it at all, then go on to muddy what needs are. I think you need to understand that the ability to derail an argument into a stalemate is not the same thing as winning, and it definitely doesn’t bring any party to a better conclusion.

>>16715018
>and we’re not beings that value truth or accuracy above all
If your definition of subspecies excludes humans (and you can have good reasons for that), you're not conceding any truth or accuracy, since there is no one true subspecies definition.

>You’ve ignored the merits and applications
No, I'm pointing out its limitations and the problems with treating arbitrary classifications as though they were absolute.
> then go on to muddy what needs are.
Do you really think humans have a base need to use the label "subspecies" for Africans? I have never felt this supposed base need.

>>16715018
Thanks, ChatGPT

>>16715021
>No, I'm pointing out its limitations and the problems with treating arbitrary classifications as though they were absolute.
are you this faggot?
>>16714710
if so, address this post and stop n-tupling down on your tranny retardation
>>16714750

>>16715025
>are you this faggot?
>>>16714710
>if so
No, I'm the one he's asking though

Your first point: Again attempting to derail the conversation by refuting definitions rather than concepts

Your second point: “You don’t have to follow your base needs” and “base needs is a poorly defined term” is actually addressing the limitations and problems with treating arbitrary classification’s as though they were absolute.

Your third point: intentionally misinterpreting not only my argument, but the use case of subspecies (Caucasians would also be considered a subspecies in this is model, all distinct races would be).

We’ve now arrived at the point in the conversation where the cycle begins, so I’m going to stop now.

>>16715022
Read a book.

>>16715041
>attempting to derail the conversation by refuting definitions rather than concepts
I addressed the concept earlier in >>16714994
and >>16714954 by pointing out the arbitrariness in these definitions.

>>16714758
Models are not reality.
If you think we have learned everything now, then you would be the same person that stopped at Newtonian physics in the past.

Models are not reality.

>>16714801
Are chimpanzees and humans the same?

>>16715046
>>16714938

>>16715047
See >>16714766. Models don't have charge, mass, etc. Particles do.

>>16715065
What is charge.
What is spin.

What makes these up or why do they exist?
Where did they come from?
Where did they go?