Blatant speciesism!
Itās also an interesting thought experiment as to if our view of our place in nature would have been changed significantly if other human species had survived into the present.
Probably not given that some Europeans claimed Africans were a subhuman species until the last century.
What would we have done if we discovered another human species in the Americas? Probably pushed them to the edge of extinction if they were technologically behind us. Thatās what we did with the original inhabitants and many of the birds and mammals.
Now if we had discovered another living human species in the last hundred years I think it would have had quite an effect on peopleās perceptions of of our place in the universe, just like the theory of evolution had for SOME of us.
Incorrecto! Bottom right corner there is one periparus
That is most definitely not what I was saying 
That however does not imply that there is a āscientificā discourse going on about extant human subspecies. There is no such discussion in āscienceā or in ābiologyā. Is there?
Some good posts! Shows a lot of the problems surrounding the issue.
Though as the bear said:
āI for one would be happy to be classed as a different species to the OPā
This kind of typical social norm of ignorance and sarcasm, although fun and funny, is actually what is causing a stigma in real life study of various topics. thatās the big issue. And in a world that seems to focus more on online activity than actual activity, these types of social norms are a problem.
moving on as that kind of talk is just silly. but funnyā¦but also worrying if serious.
Thats the spirit, question the system. Even taxonomists dont agree on damn near everything. Thats kind of the point of science, question everything and try to prove yourself wrong without bias. issue is people tend to have a lot of bias (ie what this new thread is about, bias limiting study). That all said sub-species is a legitimate ranking that will be able to be more refined than say race. i agree there is a pretty shitty definition that is not consistent for the word sub-species. so perhaps we can look at it this way: the way we look at humans is unfair and not at all consistent with how we look at other species. be it the tits or great apes. so a standard should be made. we can chat about which way to go. but if we compare us to other animals it is absolutely ridiculous to think think that if we use a standard to differentiate dogs for example, and we think humans are of one sub-species, please explain the logic (other than cultural stigma in not wanting to touch on human types whereas dogs we can as it doesnāt cause us harm if we categorize them). this is not logical and somewhat strange as science is suppose to explain things without bias and in an equal manner. dogs get separated far sooner and easier for far less obvious reasons than say Australian aborigines and Norwegian types (as an example).
so before people get all hot and moody on thinking about people pushing for human separation (not what the thread is about actually), perhaps people should cool down and think about what a subspecies is and how it fits into framework in which many life forms can be looked at.
this reminds a bit of when chemo taxonomy came into the scene with plants and blew away some old concepts of plant classification and somehow proved some old theories. like how cactus and rose are related through pigments not through spination. its all interesting and the fact people take this petty approach to asking these questions as basically being retarded or non human is precisely what made me post in the beginning about china and peoples immature state of mind when trying to analyze something.
what isnt in the literature today, might be tomorrow. dont forget we used to deny gravity and think the earth was flat. urodacus summed up that aspect above quite wellā¦
ps. there is study looking into placing the chimps into Homo. im not saying i agree or not as i am greatly unqualified to make that assessment, but it is interesting. again compare to other animals and how we place together and we might start either changing their rankings or our own. people tend to be a bit high and mighty in this arena of debateā¦
there is some, mostly with the extreme science guys. like genetics, evolution, historians etc). what seems avoided is such talk in the general population. you can see the backlash just in this thread for suggesting it, and universities, high schools etc are all about not touching on this important topic. my high school biology teachers said straight up they wouldnāt discuss evolution due to complaints by parentsā¦conversations to provoke thinking should not be avoided. people dont need to be right all the time, just need to be open to thought so they can try and prove or disprove a theory.
genetically able or psychologically willing are 2 different things. those chimp groups have clear and obvious differences, even in morals. it perhaps could be asked: would a jew in poland during 1944 want to birth a nazi officials child willingly? animals do have thoughts, preferences and choices. perhaps the greatest tragedy of modern science is not realizing that. any person that has experience in animal husbandry will agree they have preferences, the fascinating thing is what and why. so its not an easy thing to study at all. i even found mating preferences in Typopeltis crucifer here in taiwan when studying them in the field and breeding them through a few years. again back to main point, people are just animals, and animals are like people, with intent and preferences. to think a thing mates without though being the basis for a species description is cute. like people, there are those that F without thought and those that marry once and never look at another again.
just the reproduction thing alone is complicated as many hybrids of amazing distance have been successful via labs. but they would theoretically never happen in nature much like we would (hopefully) never start having sex with apes. although thhat seems to have happened alreadyā¦
Is this the mudblood thread?
1 Like
Nein! It#s about Rassenlehre!
Excuse my English, I come from the Ćbermenschen!
2 Likes
domestic dogs have breeds, but they are all the same subspecies.
I do recall seeing a 100-meter dash featuring runners from France, Britain, The U.S. and Canada- all were of descent from within a couple of hundred miles in West Africa.
Sorry. you are right. my bad. i should have said āWolvesā which is the proper name for the species dogs belong to. Canis lupus is what i was trying to say 
see how bad an idea it is to use non standardized systemsā¦
political, like religious, affiliation doesnt have much place in taxomony. nor do gangs, club memberships or favorite colors.
Yeah well, God doesnāt exist, but people breeders are OK.
So, let me get this straightā¦āInterracial breeding between peopleā results in new homo sapien subspecies not unlike Goldendoodles. Is that about it?
Low bar award goes to whomever started this insanity.
1 Like
That bar is off the ground though, need lower
Itās all about separation, as the title says.
First separate humans into different species (races).
Then mark each race with a different set of qualities, features, intellectually and physically. After that, let open discrimination take its course.
Why even think about it. We can interbreed and the offspringās can continue their line.
If you want to separate humans, divide them by 6 000 000 000 or so, cause thatās the current gene pool available to deal with future changes and problems.
1 Like
Weāve always been interbreeding anyway, and weāve even been interbreeding with different species, so itās all good 
.
In some parts of the world this version of a gene or that version of a gene will be more commonā¦Thatās all really.
I mean thereās no offshoot walking around with three legs or anything , ah sorry I forgot the Giant Dong tribe again.
confusing religion with species distinction is where it all starts to go wrong. no one is talking about breeding people. we are talking about people that are breeding, usually over a long course of time. to get this thread, that first needs to be understood.
totally off. please read more. a single breeding of 2 types is far from a subspecies distinction. please read above posts to get an idea of what we are talking about. a basic understanding of what a species and subspecies are is good. it doesnt happen in a single generation. it does happen over thousands. though creationists might not agree.
your words, your insanity 
enjoy your bar
see original thread on language and china claiming english. this thread was split and thus creates more confusion because the mods divided it. see link above.
not to split hairs but no one is comparing species to races. this is exactly the problem today, people get emotional over trying to learn and figure out shit and they get stupid all of a sudden. there is a separation, though psychology and the like cant happen yet as we dont even know how to separate things in order to understand ourselves.
discrimination is also why i brought this topic up. people are too IMMATURE to handle talking about something so obvious as we are distinct and different from each other, like animals. so immature, in fact, we may start wars, fights etc. thus culture has limited our ability to openly discuss (study) such problems. before i thought this was painfully obvious. jeeze man, seems running around in circlesā¦
why would we not want to think about it? granted there are those who try to advance and those who are comfortable with the status quo. but improving our education should always be a priority, or at least not ostracized.
i think you are confusing āinterbreedingā as a few generations when we are actually talking about long term. people didnt just pop up this century and start breeding. its been an evolution, as such there is divergence and convergence. that simple fact should be amazing and interesting, not scary and taboo.
lets just use the above mentioned medicinal aspect of our genes as a (hopefully) all around agreement of why our genetics are important and why it may be useful looking into it openly.
No.
Great read on the spread of Homo Sapiens across the world. Iām in the middle of his second book now
He suggests that our ability to cooperate in large groups towards an āImagined Orderā is what led to A) our āseparationā from nature, and B) the downfall of other lesser abled hominid brethren.
2 Likes
Smells like eugenics. I think the reason āmatureā conversation isnāt being furthered is that subconsciously we know there is going to be an inferior of some sort thus leading to some one or more gene pool being pushed out of existence.
1 Like