Search Results
7/18/2025, 11:43:35 PM
>>81876772
mm nah
mm nah
7/10/2025, 3:29:12 AM
Humans are in fact 99.8% similar in regards to our DNA. Genetic differences among individuals account for 95% of genetic variation. Differences among major groups account for just 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. 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% 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. 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
At the end of the day not only can you categorize humans into 5 races, those races would be classified as subspecies if it werent for a combination of humanities arrogance to place ourselves above phylogenetic classification
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 groups particular survival is existence for existences sake. Nature needs diversity for diversitys 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
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. 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% 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. 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
At the end of the day not only can you categorize humans into 5 races, those races would be classified as subspecies if it werent for a combination of humanities arrogance to place ourselves above phylogenetic classification
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 groups particular survival is existence for existences sake. Nature needs diversity for diversitys 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
7/3/2025, 1:51:19 PM
Are niggers a different species?
Page 1