The Gettysburg Address

Humans have as much biodiversity as other species which are recognized as having subspecies

Such as???

IIRC, human biodiversity has a rate of 0.7, which is the same as other species which are considered to be Polytipic, such as wolves and plenty of birds

I think he meant created equal in spirit, in the sense that men have being sentient in common

created equal in rights, not created equal in ability, dummy.

>they are equal because i have decided to treat them equally, not because they are "created equal"

It's just the Christian way to justify "treating them equally". Read a book or something.

so it's dumb as fuck is what you're saying?

What is it like lacking this much reading comprehension? How do you function in your daily life?

not an argument

That's because those species have a common ancestor. That's why we could breed with Neaderthals because we split off at the same time. Genetic variation =/= different species

>A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species.
How does an Australian Aboriginal versus as European not qualify?

ebin
Anyway, the fact that you ascribe the quote "all men are created equal' to the Gettysburg Address and not to the Declaration of Independence tells me that you are a race-baiting ignorant idiot.

eh, and the Gettysburg Address references the DoI, so it's a non-issue

but you seem to be attacking the conclusion and not the line of reason, which leads me to believe you are the more partisan party here.

Because there is barely any genetic variation between these people. They both develop the same as humans. Again, genetic variation =/= different species

Thank you for being upfront about your racism. The conclusion, that both our founding fathers and Lincoln stated repeatedly, is that all men are created equal, equal in rights before the law, all equal in their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's why it's a subspecies, not a different species you goof

No its not. Dogs can look drastically different but they are still the same species.

Our last subspecies was Homo sapiens idaltu which were anatomically modern humans but not psychologically the same, thats why they are a subspecies

Yes, which is a subspecies can exist within a species, do you know what the definition of a subspecies is?

Fair enough

There are contemporary humans which fit the definition of a subspecies though

For starters, that's the Declaration of Independance, being quoted in Gettysburg. That's Thomas Jefferson's line, not Lincoln's.

And he meant equal at birth and in death and of equal value in the eyes of God, thus they should be given equal opportunity to be the best they can be. This is Jefferson we're talking about, so he probably wasn't thinking much about niggers - unlike you, by trying to tie this core American percept to Lincoln.

Egalitarianism entails equal treatment under the law, not enforced equality. It might entail boosting the young underprivileged to some degree, depending on how you interpret it, but in the end, everyone is free to fly or fall under their own merits.

>There are contemporary humans which fit the definition of a subspecies though
such as?

>biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14414/do-humans-have-enough-biological-differences-to-be-grouped-into-races-or-subspec
also its been proven races are not subspecies

That's not the same though, that statement declares that all are equal at creation, and I think it not logical to arbitrarily declare that God made all men equal, at least not in the case of the millions of years of divergent evolution following our creation. Equal under the law is something man declares, this is not the case at creation.

Australian Aboriginals and Europeans are the most obvious case

How are groups of the same species, isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years, physical different and not typically sexually attractive to one another, with a genetic variation on par with other polytpic species, not different subspecies when two birds on different sides of the same mountain range can be?

>How are groups of the same species, isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years, physical different and not typically sexually attractive to one another, with a genetic variation on par with other polytpic species, not different subspecies when two birds on different sides of the same mountain range can be?
They need distinct genetic differences not "cuz the look different"

Wrong
>A subspecies is a taxonomic rank below species – the only recognized rank in the zoological code,[5] and one of three main ranks below species in the botanical code.[4] 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.[6] Botanists and mycologists have the choice of ranks lower than subspecies, such as variety (varietas) or form (forma), to recognize smaller differences between populations.[4]