>homosexual Sapiens went from this to all other ethnicities in only 90-60k years.
I find that hard to believe.
I'm not gonna go full Schizo but there has to be something missing here.
>Homo Sapiens went from this to all other ethnicities in only 90-60k years.
Admixture with other hominids was instrumental in forming the major races.
But anthropologist scream and cry that's not true and it was mutations. But that's alot of diversity in such a short amount of time.
Those same people deny races exist anyway so their argument is incoherent.
Meaningless statement out of context. The reader does not get the true sense of scale to understand that 1% is a massive amount of DNA and the difference between great apes is not much greater.
Races do exist, but they're more subtle than what we consider to be the races today, which are closer to different species and sub-species and were largely recognized by science as sub-species such until about 40 years ago. If the African elephant is distant enough from the Asiatic elephant to be separate species then so are Africans and Asians.
It really wasn't. Most of the traits that people associate with race evolved independently.
I'm of the belief that admixture events are usually accompanied by rapid selection and population reshaping. You see this a lot with human groups.
Look how much dogs changed in 12k years into like 500 distinct races
*species
The actual genetic difference between different races of human amounts to less than 1%
>Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA
That's only if you include single base pair mutations, in actuality humans and chimps only share 96 percent of their DNA at most but only 29 percent of the same amino sequences. So no, humans and chimps do not share 98 percent of their DNA outside of popscience headlines. Different races of human are far, far more similat to eachother
The real question is how similar are chimps to bonobos, since we have declared them separate species.
Good question, the closest answer I found is that taxonomists are sometimes moronic, but as a general rule, if they can breed and produce fertile offspring, they're the same species, debate notwithstanding
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22904,00.htm
>if they can breed and produce fertile offspring, they're the same species
This rule is a total meme and does not successfully define any species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogxim
Well, considering the Dogxim was likely infertile, it would not have been considered the same species, so the rule still applied. To be the same species, the resulting offspring must also be fertile.
>Although she was sterilized during her medical care, scientists believed that she had been capable of reproduction.[14]
There is a whole world of canine haploautism going on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_coyote
>In 2014, a DNA study of northeastern coyotes showed them on average to be a hybrid of western coyote (62%), western wolf (14%), eastern wolf (13%), and domestic dog (11%) in their nuclear genome.
All the same species goy, no significant difference.
coyote and wolves have a smaller genetic distance between them than humans and africans anyway lol
This is where I think taxonomists are kind of moronic, in cases like this where members of different species but the same genus can reproduce, they're simply known as hybrid offspring, and its possible with Canids in particular because they all share identical sets of chromosomes
As you probably know, the Ursus genus is also capable of interbreeding, with polar bears more existentially threatened by miscegenation with southern brown bears than anything else. Most bear populations already are mixed in various configurations to begin with.
Actually, in this case, this isn't the first time they've interbred with eachother. 10% of modern brown bears can trace their lineage to polar bears today
Yes like I said, bears already have complex ancestry. Few or none of the extant bear species are genetically pure, yet the classification remains as it is.
>coyote and wolves have a smaller genetic distance between them than humans and africans anyway lol
And yet people are widely willing to acknowledge that they have significant differences in temperant, anatomy and general behaviour.
Big cat hybrids are also fertile.
>In 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an island tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[27]
>In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[28]
*temperament
Anyone denying that 60,000+ years of bottleneck events, genetic drift, and differential selection across new environments wouldn't lead to average group genetic differences is moronic.
No other species in natural history has radiated from one specific region to a worldwide presence without speciation.
Polar bear and grizzly hybrids are fertile, as far as I know.
wholpins are also fertile
>Although she was sterilized during her medical care, scientists believed that she had been capable of reproduction.[14]
Jesus Christ
Did you not pay attention to the fact it's a Canid and not a true fox?
Did you not pay attention to the fact it's a different genus?
I like how several people replied to me with the points I made myself immediately afterwards in the thread, because they are simply incapable of reading.
As long as you get that. Some morons try to say that a true fox and a canine can have offspring.
A better example would be Wolves and Coyotes. They can breed fertile offspring yet everyone knows that they are two separate species
able to produce fertile offspring is a necessary part of being the same species, but breeding populations that do not naturally encounter each other that can produce fertile offspring are still considered different (sub)species.
a species is defined as a breeding population within a specific area
Reproduction is about whether the alleles that result in reproductive structures result in reproductive structures that are capable of reproducing. Taxonomy has NOTHING to do with it. If our reproductive structures were conservative enough we could frick trees and have fertile offspring. Pic related is the sturddlefish, a fertile and totally healthy hybrid between a sturgeon and a paddlefish. They're in the same order (ours is Primate btw) and diverged 184 million years ago and aren't even from the same continent. This would be like you sticking your dick in a lemur and producing a fertile hybrid.
This is why in actual biology Linnaean taxonomy is just a handy guide for classifying animals and not taken as something serious. Actual science is all about genetics. Dawkins won, Hovind lost.
How is this hard to believe? You can see the full divergence of Africans and the rest of human migrants across the planet
Picrel are close to the furthest extent from the basal African lineage; you think you're a special snowflake or something?
>captcha: OPPA
You think dogs are 500 distinct species?
my progressive colleges anthro textbook in 2023 specifically states that subspecies and race are just synonymous with each other, but the distinction isn't cladistically useful as breeding populations aren't geographically limited like non homosexual sapiens would be.
Honestly the definition of subspecies should be thrown out all together.
Through human intervention, we didn't have someone forcing us to mass inbreed and we also don't have large litters. It would be way slower.
Humans regularly intervene in human reproduction.
Not to the level of animal breeding. They also don't pic specific traits suited for better roles amongst themselves. They didn't have Charles and Mary have a child because they both had paler skin.
>but there has to be something missing here.
Its called civilization
Humans were very transient before around 70k years ago. The agricultural revolution enabled us to settle into groups that became more isolated from eachother over time
The major races had already formed when the agricultural revolution occurred and HGs at that time looked nothing like Proto-Humans. You would know this if you dutifully read your haploautism threads.
Doesn't seem that unlikely to me. Literally only takes 4 generations to from full abo to European.
Damn, so Australians are actually native and just convergently evolved into white people? Why don't we hear about this?
So the interbreeding rule does not define species for dogs, cats, bears, or even other ape clades except homosexual sapiens(which proponents of this meme simply retcon neanderthalensis and denisova into). Is there any type of mammal where it holds up?
It does, but again, taxonomists are moronic sometimes, there's a lot of debate that goes into this
It looks to me like it can be disproven for most major animals and species in actuality closely corresponds to what we would call race
>it can be disproven
I see no proof of the contrary, just mindless semantics over what degree the interbreeding rule should or shouldn't hold up
I have provided examples of fertile hybridisation in several geni and can provide many more, at what point does the rule stop holding?
In fact dogxim was intergenus, the relation of her parents was only at the tribe level
It stops holding when two species can no longer interbreed with eachother, which we have far more examples of overall.
Point accepted: There exist species that cannot breed with each other. Despite this, many mammals are not reliably defined on genetic compatibility, and interspecies breeding is widely possible. Is this true or false?
>and interspecies breeding is widely possible. Is this true or false?
Once again, I must reiterate, if two genus can produce fertile offspring with eachother, then they are also, by definition, the same species as well in most cases, but exact definitions and semantics break down at this level because taxonomists are moronic. I don't know what else to tell you
You are the only one who says they are the same species; they are formally defined as separate species and recognised as such by all current scientific authorities. You simply call these authorities "moronic" because they do not adhere to your fanfic rule, which their systems were never designed after.
>You are the only one who says they are the same species;
Wrong
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22904,00.htm
>A half-dog half-wolf will always be sterile
Did you read this shit?
>Nigel is wrong. A wolf/dog hybrid is fertile and is in fact not a hybrid at all because wolves and dogs are exactly the same species
...did you?
...!?
You're just moving the goalpost now. I don't care what some wikipedia window says because the point I'm trying to make is that these definitions are clearly up for debate and taxonomists are morons. I think I've said all I could at this point. Good day anon
Good day my hominid(possibly human) brother.
The weirdest shit about humans is how we dont look exactly like Black folk right now while chimps look the same as their ancestors from 3 million years ago.
It’s because out of Africa is bullshit and weak multiregionalism is true
It's all made up hocus pocus nonsense anyways.
Why?