/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11576677]

Why aren't the various races of homo sapiens considered subspecies?

[Anonymous No.11576684]

Viable offspring and btfoing racists

[Anonymous No.11576685]

>>11576677
Their offspring aren't sterile.

[Anonymous No.11576686]

>>11576677
Because they naturally interbreed, you dong.

[Anonymous No.11576715]

>why doesn't science confirm my uninformed poltarded brainlet beliefs
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.11576787]

>>11576684
Even different species can have viable offspring in some cases.

[Anonymous No.11576802]

>>11576677
>>11576787

When different species breed and produce viable offspring they are always allopolyploid.

Different subspecies don't breed due to geographic isolation.

[Anonymous No.11576810]

>>11576802
>they are always allopolyploid.
So what?
>Different subspecies don't breed due to geographic isolation.
So it was largely true for most races across most of human history.

[Anonymous No.11576819]

>>11576677

the same reason why chihuahuas and great danes are both considered canis familiaris. yet, there is still useful knowledge specific to each breed.

>>11576684
>>11576685

look up hybrid speciation. the "viable offspring" thing is high school level education at best.

>>11576684
>>11576715

i don't think you should assume racist intent when there is no solid evidence to suggest there is racist intent.

[Anonymous No.11576827]

>>11576819
first quality post itt

[Anonymous No.11576847]

>>11576810
Ok, so if something was once true, but it's not true anymore, is it still true?

[Anonymous No.11576849]

>>11576802
>>11576810

okay, i'm gonna back you guys up for a sec.

I agree, with the guy who said: what does allopolyploidalism have to do with speciation?

and while subspecies not breeding due to geographic isolation is true, the greater truth is that geographic isolation is one way to cause further speciation. that is, exchanging genes is likely to minimize the rate of or prevent speciation altogether.

humans simply haven't been geographically isolated for long enough to have speciated, and the same goes for most dog breeds.

natural mechanism of geographical isolation often rely on geologic processes that take hundreds of millions of years, so a few thousand years of isolation is not likely to result in speciation.

remember, humans share genetic similarily to plants and animals ranging from greater than 0% all the way up to 98%, an absolute value to the percent of genetic similarity doesn't really help because it's hard to point to exactly where we should draw the demarcation line of speciation defined by some measurable genetic similarity.

i think the best model is:

if genes are exchanged within a population, then you can get away with calling members of that population a species. if genes stop being exchanged (naturally, this is caused by geographic isolation) then speciation is likely to result.

[Anonymous No.11576851]

>>11576677
Why do you /pol/tards always come up with the shittiest b8 imaginable?

[Anonymous No.11576873]

>>11576849
also, yes. interracial breeding is evidence that supports the notion that H. sapiens are members of the same species because genes are being exchanged within members of this population.

but that wasn't even the original question. it wasn't whether or not different races are different species, but why they aren't categorized as subspecies.

my answer is:

if you go by strict lexical definitions (lol). then, yes (to those groups that are actually isolated) and no (to those groups that were but are no longer geographically isolated).

in the study of animals, subspecies are colloquially defined as a population subset within a species that has undergone geographic isolation and has acquired observable distinguishing characteristics (like lungless salamanders of southern california).

this is cool, but it can't possibly apply to humans since geographic isolation is hardly applicable to humans these days as we have the means to effectively eliminate the hurdle of geography.

and also:

how often do members of two isolated populations have to exchange genes in order for those two groups to no longer be considered isolated? this is just going to be another fruitless pain-in-the-ass demarcation problem.

[Anonymous No.11576874]

>>11576847
No, it just means that intermixing is destroying human biodiversity

[Anonymous No.11576876]

>>11576819
Phenotypes are not species. But really it's all just semantics at the end of the day. What difference would it make if different races were subspecies? It's all just biology stamp collecting imo

[Anonymous No.11576881]

>>11576851
if by /pol/tard, you mean racist, i would argue that it wasn't necessarily a racist question to begin with. it has a legitimate scientific basis, and even has philosophical undertones of the limits of human epistemology and whether or not ontological categories created by biologists back in the past are sufficient for modern-day human populations.

[Anonymous No.11576882]

>>11576874
What do you mean by biodiversity?

[Anonymous No.11576884]

>>11576882
Different genetic clusters which have genetic traits that are particular to each cluster.
i.e by biodiversity I mean biodiversity.

[Anonymous No.11576885]

>>11576810
>>11576849

Fertile allopolyploids are nearly unheard of in mammals. Plants, sure. Fish, maybe.

[Anonymous No.11576887]

So racial intermixing is bad?

[Anonymous No.11576894]

>>11576885
So fucking what? We're already discussing those that are. Anyways the point was that even (some) different species can create fertile offsprings, different subspecies most definitely aren't preclude from doing that.

[Anonymous No.11576901]

>>11576884
Who gives a shit about clusters? Large populations have more genetic diversity than small populations. Humans have more now than ever.

[Anonymous No.11576907]

>>11576901
Now you're just adding new parameters to muddy the waters. I never said anything against a larger population.
>who gives a shit about clusters
people searching for donors sure do.

[Anonymous No.11576908]

From the definition of subspecies
"When geographically separate populations of a species exhibit recognizable phenotypic differences, biologists may identify these as separate subspecies; a subspecies is a recognized local variant of a species"
Human races definitely check all the boxes, anthropologists and biologists are just too scared to say it due to political faggotry in universities

[Anonymous No.11576911]

>>11576874
"human biodiversity" is almost an oxymoron.

okay, what you say is like, mostly untrue.

when "intermixing" (as you call it) occurs you are actually increasing the total number of genetic combinations until a certain threshold is reached, then you get diminishing returns on the margin of new genetic combinations.

like, okay. yeah. you're eventually going to exhaust all possible genetic combinations, but that only increases genetic variability/diversity.

and this is more true in large populations, than smaller ones that are more susceptible to random drift causing less variation over time.

[Anonymous No.11576913]

>>11576894
Obviously subspecies aren't precluded. But since we are discussing humans, and humans are mammals. Bringing that cross species hybrids can be fertile>>11576787
is pretty pointless here since there are almost no fertile cross species hybrids mammals. Taxonomy is imperfect, to the point of being in a crisis, but the species line is relatively sharp in mammals.

[Anonymous No.11576917]

>>11576911
>increasing the total number of genetic combinations
Who cares? The effect is usually to average out a bunch of traits (because several different genes have an effect) in such a way that they'll tend to have a more homogeneous skin colour, height, intelligence, etc. What matters is how it gets ultimately expressed. So individuals in a specific society might have more variance, but over the entire human population there's less variance, and both are bad things.

[Anonymous No.11576918]

>>11576913
we're debating "species" when the original post was about "subspecies"

but what you say about species being very distinct in mammals is true nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.11576919]

>>11576913
Yeah that's beside the actual discussion but whatever.

[Anonymous No.11576920]

>>11576907
You know what? I imagine we're gonna come up with a solution to organ compatibility before we get anywhere close to fucking ourselves brown.

[Anonymous No.11576923]

>>11576920
Well then maybe we should slow that the fuck down until we do find a way to deal with it, no?

[Anonymous No.11576927]

>>11576917

hold on, when i state "once you maximize all possible genetic combinations", it implies the original "races" still exist.

if you "breed away" one race altogether, then GG, you've will have necessarily decreased the genetic diversity of a population.

i guess i suck at words.

some "intermixing" will produce more genetic variability and diversity. "complete and total 'breeding out' of a race would lose some genetic variability, but will likely still result in net genetic variability"

and hey, you're the one who said "intermixing destroys human biodiversity" as if "diversity" was important or some shit. i was just stating that intermixing actually produces measurable, opposite results.

[Anonymous No.11576931]

>>11576927
>if you "breed away" one race altogether, then GG, you've will have necessarily decreased the genetic diversity of a population.
Ok you have realized that you were wrong. You're still trying to cover your ass a little by pretending you meant something else but that's alright.

[Anonymous No.11576935]

>>11576923
If they were throwing organs out because they couldn't find a person to put them in, you might have a point, but that's not what's happening. There's someone to put the organ in, the wait list is massive. The problem is not enough donors overall.

[Anonymous No.11576954]

>>11576935
>If they were throwing organs out because they couldn't find a person to put them in, you might have a point
Of course that happens, their own body does that on it own when the transplant fails 9not literally expelling it but you get the point), and it's more likely with people of mixed race ancestry.

[Anonymous No.11576959]

>>11576677

[Anonymous No.11576965]

>>11576954
Another non point. Organ transplant failure rates are falling much faster than races are mixing.

[Anonymous No.11576971]

>>11576965
>non point
It's entirely correct, that doesn't mean it's not a disadvantage to intermixing, it just means it will become less of a problem with time, and you don't need to be a prophet to realize that (assuming no collapse for whatever reason).

[Anonymous No.11576983]

>>11576971
So if, without direct intervention, a problem gets less severe over time, now's the time to directly intervene?

If you want to talk about a collapse, then lets. Because in the event of unforseen disaster, total genetic diversity is what allows the species the best chance to change the fastest. Not clusters. Clustering takes place when subpopulations face environmental conditions. Populations of animals don't look around at eachother and say, "we look too much alike now guys, lets only fuck someone who looks just like us" There has to be a selection pressure from the environment.

Humans control their environment to the extent they can. You want to see some really out there clusters of new people? Lets go to Mars, lets see what low grav and radiation does to any problem that technology doesn't tackle.

[Anonymous No.11576990]

>>11576677
Too fluid

[Anonymous No.11576993]

>>11576983
>now's the time to directly intervene
I don't know, did I say that?
>total genetic diversity is what allows the species the best chance to change the fastest. Not clusters
For a specific population, humanity overall has fewer distinct races with potentially different traits to deal with the problem.
> Clustering takes place when subpopulations face environmental conditions
Well yeah no shit?
> lets only fuck someone who looks just like us
For real? Of course they do, it's just a matter of degree.

[Anonymous No.11577000]

>>11576993
>I don't know, did I say that?
I dunno who's who here.
>Well then maybe we should slow that the fuck down until we do find a way to deal with it
>For a specific population, humanity overall has fewer distinct races with potentially different traits to deal with the problem.
No, we have even more traits, they're just smaller. If there is pressure to select for a trait, and it exists to any degree in the population it will be amplified over time. But it's the variety of genetic combinations that that help ensure that a useful trait is present when it is needed.

If you're sad because we're all turning brown, that doesn't mean there's less genetic variety, it means that skin color isn't very important to our survival at the moment. If it ever is again, the genes will exist in the population to push us towards optimal.

[Anonymous No.11577007]

>>11576993
>For real? Of course they do, it's just a matter of degree.

Animals still fuck even when they're so genetically different they can't produce fertile offspring. It's the differing set of selection pressures in their respective environments that produce that amount of divergence, not their willingness to fuck.

[Anonymous No.11577023]

>>11576847
And if we deported africans in europe back to africa, we would become subspecies again ?

[Anonymous No.11577026]

>>11577000
>Well then maybe we should slow that the fuck down until we do find a way to deal with it
Yeah, but you said direct intervention. NOT importing people is the passive position. Politicians didn't win campaigns on promises of open border, they rode on other shit. Without interference people natural inclination is to oppose immigration.
>we have even more traits
Not distinct to different population, it's homogenized. So all populations across the globe then become equally susceptible to the effect of some evolutionary pressure x imposed on that population, even though *individuals* are not, but their society at large will.
> But it's the variety of genetic combinations that that help ensure that a useful trait is present when it is needed.
Not when they average out. What matters is how they're ultimately expressed.
>it means that skin color isn't very important to our survival at the moment
So what? The current environment is dysgenic and unsustainable. People with low intelligence have outright more kids than people with a higher intelligence. Looking at how traits like there perform right now is stupid and shortsighted, and meaningless.
And it's not just skin color, it's intelligence, predisposition towards aggression, immune system strength, height, physical strength, etc.
>the genes will exist in the population to push us towards optimal.
Yeah sure and we'll just have to wait a few thousand years for the useless genes to be selected out when separate, genetically distinct clusters would allow some societies to be more successful in x environment and out breed failing ones.

[Anonymous No.11577029]

>>11577007
>Animals still fuck even when they're so genetically different they can't produce fertile offspring
Of course, that's why I said it's a matter of degree. They're obviously overall attracted to members of the same group.
>It's the differing set of selection pressures in their respective environments that produce that amount of divergence, not their willingness to fuck.
Of course, but saying they don't have a preference, as you did, is wrong.

[Anonymous No.11577031]

>>11576983
>Because in the event of unforseen disaster, total genetic diversity is what allows the species the best chance to change the fastest. Not clusters.
Why do you say that ? obviously that's wrong. Clusters mean phenotypic diversity, which is the kind of diversity that can allow survival to new conditions. A non-clustered population will all have about the same phenotype and so the same rate of survival.

[Anonymous No.11577036]

>>11577031
fuck finally someone who gets it

[Anonymous No.11577103]

>>11577026
>NOT importing people is the passive position.

Oh is it? Cause I thought changing nothing is the passive position.

>Not distinct to different population, it's homogenized.

Throughout history, what have been the most common causes of death of humans before reproductive age?
It's not a new answer, you can find it in Revelations. Famine, Pestilence, and War. Those have been the greatest selection pressures upon us. Those are the things we've got to keep in check. War has selected for bigger stronger people with faster metabolisms and has Famine selected for smaller lower muscle people with slower metabolisms. What has Pestilence selected for?

Whatever it can. It's minute biochemical differences that determine who gets infected and the severity of symptoms. We don't know beforehand what's going to provide resistance to the next big disease, but we aren't reducing biochemical diversity by mixing populations. You're just looking at macro features.

>So what? The current environment is dysgenic and unsustainable.

Ok, if the smarter you are, the fewer kids you tend to have, what does it mean when on average, everyone is having fewer kids? Doesn't seem like it means everyone is getting stupider to me. We're living in the most peaceful time in human history, and you're telling me people are getting more aggressive? Humans are the tallest, strongest, and healtiest they have ever been, living the longest lives. What rose colored glasses are you viewing the past through?

[Anonymous No.11577171]

>>11577103
>>11577103
>Cause I thought changing nothing is the passive position.
The change was already made, and has be ACTIVELY upkept, unless you want no screening at the border at all which would be the only other scenario that would actually involve less active effort.

>but we aren't reducing biochemical diversity by mixing populations
Of course you could, some populations might have receptors that make them more susceptible to certain disease, and once they interbreed now nearly everyone has it. And does who still don't are surrounded by people who do and still get some of the negative effect.
>Ok, if the smarter you are, the fewer kids you tend to have, what does it mean when on average, everyone is having fewer kids? Doesn't seem like it means everyone is getting stupider to me
Of course it does, what are you on about?
>and you're telling me people are getting more aggressive?
I never said that, I said that skin colour isn't the only potential factor to consider. And hell too little aggressivity could be a disadvantage in the future too.
>Humans are the tallest, strongest, and healtiest they have ever been, living the longest lives
Because of technology and nutrition, not genetics.

[Anonymous No.11577178]

>>11576677
Because neurotypical whites think that any difference is a sufficient reason for killing the person, so that we all have to pretend there are no difference, otherwise the whites would have to kill them.

[Anonymous No.11577186]

>>11576677
Because that's racist

[Anonymous No.11577189]

>>11576677
maybe because of political correctness?

[Anonymous No.11577228]

>>11577171
You said "should slow" that implies changing it, you didn't say "should keep it like it is"

>Of course you could, some populations might have receptors that make them more susceptible to certain disease, and once they interbreed now nearly everyone has it.

Even with a monogenic dominant trait, if there's no selection pressure on it before the disease, and it spreads completely throughout the population 1/4 of people will not have it. But most traits aren't monotypic dominant and a situation like that is hardly likely unless you're forcing everyone to fuck someone as genetically distant at possible. I'm just saying there's no harm in the rate that population mixing has occured.

>Of course it does, what are you on about?
In 1960 the total fertility rate in the USA was 3.6, today, it's 1.7. If stupider people have more kids, then people on average were stupider than they were in 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

>Because of technology and nutrition, not genetics.

Why yes, technology is the dominant factor in our progress. Because biological evolution is glacial in comparison, trying to massage society into breeding for a specific set of traits is dumb. If we find something we really need, or something really harmful just add it to, or subtract it from an embryo.

[Anonymous No.11577262]

>>11577228
>"should keep it like it is"
Of course it is but that involves merely reversing active involvement.
>1/4 of people will not have it.
I said it makes them more susceptible, not that the other are immune.
> I'm just saying there's no harm in the rate that population mixing has occurred.
It will increase with the changing demographic makeup of the population.
>flynn effect
oh god.
And you're still full of shit about how a low overall birthrate means that a higher relative birthrate for idiots wont decrease intelligence.
>Why yes, technology is the dominant factor in our progress.
So why the fuck did you bring that up? I was talking about how race mixing would affect genetics.
>trying to massage society into breeding for a specific set of traits is dumb
I just said we shouldn't fuck with our gene pool.