Why?

>/pol/ is quickly going to become the only safe Haven for scientific inquiry on the internet

Remember that scientific truth is what majority of that scientifical community says.

>Scientifical
I can tell you are very familiar with science.

It already is. SJWtards can't handle discussing anything in pol with their memes and inexistant evidence, which is why they're desperately trying to siege Veeky Forums to spread their science denialism propaganda. Even though Veeky Forums kicks their asses out lmao

What did he mean by this?

true dat. Even though I usually enjoy memes, I hate when retards flood the thread and call everyone pol and talk about hitler out of nowhere.
I haven't seen a more boring, dumb no-fun group on the internet than SJWtards. All they do is hate and whine.

>they are sentient beings with the same range of experience
citation needed

we already know it's you from the last thread

>we
well YOU shouldn't hang around Veeky Forums too long and fuck off back to the anus you crawled out of
SJWtards are not welcome here

Wow, I was right on the mark :^)

stop making /pol/ look bad

...

> wow im smart
loser pls...

/pol/ makes itself look bad.

The last human subespecies was homo sapiens neanderthalensis, anything else is just a cline for a polymorphic character.

You didn't answer why though.

There is more genetic distance between an European and an Australian Aboriginal than between an Asiatic and African Lion.

>Genetic Differentation Among African and Asiatic Lions Is Less Than Found Among Different Human Groups:

>The mtDNA distance between Sub-Saharan Africans and White Europeans is around 2.0

>The mtDNA distance between African and Asiatic Lions is around 0.92:

>In spite of the ability of lions to disperse long distances, patterns of lion genetic diversity suggest substantial population subdivision (mtDNA ΦST = 0.92; nDNA FST = 0.18), and reduced gene flow, which, along with large differences in sero-prevalence of six distinct FIVPle subtypes among lion populations, refute the hypothesis that African lions consist of a single panmictic population.

>plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000251

>“There is only one spcies of lion: Panthera leo. The Asiatic lion is just one of many subspecies, all of which have been geographically isolated from one another for thousands of years. Though they all possess slightly different physical and behavioral traits, they are still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring.”

>animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/wild-kingdom/about-animals/asiatic-vs-african.htm

...

And everybody except africans have more neanderthal DNA, but yet you see more genetic distance between african populations than the rest of the world.

Aboriginials came from a very small population that "stranded" into Australia, by the simple "founder" effect its quite normal to find more genetic distance, for the simple fact that the gene pool was very low at the start.

But my point is not about, genetic distances, variation through space is more about how many populations end up "sharing" their genes with distant populations than anything else.

My point is, that a cline is when you have a certain characteristic that varies continously through populations and humanity is too interbred to say that a certain characteristic is exclusive in a certain population.

Skin color is the classical example, where you will find more melanocites in Africans for simple enviromental pressure, but that doesn't mean that such trait can only be found in Africa or that caucasians can't develop black skin in a "few" generations.

In fact, while you go "up" the map, the skin becomes whiter and whiter, just compare Ghana with Egipt/turkish phenotypes.

But this happens with a lot of other things, metabolic rate, muscle organization, limb lenght(although that one Im not sure if its exactly a cline)... and so on(intelligence just goes into another category of variation).

Also, to "create" a human species you need like 200.000 years of isolation minimum, for subespecies much less but still is quite high(for the rest of the animal world the ammount of generations needed to create a subspecies/species is usually lower)

>cherrypicked data
>pseudoscience IQ circlejerk
>hypothesis that "just make sense!"
Triple kek my friends.

> im mad and everything I don't like is a lie !!!11!
ok

Go read the entire article of wikipedia about humans you retarded 1920s cuck

>genetic difference between lions and human misinterpretation
>taxonomy concept debates
>"scientific debate" full of "non-facts" and sociology bullshit
Are you okay, my lad?

Wow. atleast we could get you to accept there are genetic differences between organisms and they have different traits. Thats a step up I guess :^)

Who said otherwise?
kek
Go circlejerk about your cherrypicked academics IQ pseudoscience scores on Veeky Forums you loser.

Because you don't know what the fuck a morphospecies is

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morphospecies

> small IQ brainlet detected
ooooh I see now. Did they bully you when you told them your low IQ score or could you not even find the courage to tell people what a small IQ you got ?

It's okay my brainlet friend, you can tell me. There's no judgement here :^)

>he doesn't believe in pseudoscience, get him!
Kek, what a brainlet.
I don't even support that circlejerk community and I probably have a higher score than you.
Too bad for you I guess. kek

> anything I suck at is pseudoscience
Well it's clear that intelligence and IQ didn't have much influence on you too much lol. Hating people with high IQs won't magically make yours higher brainlet.

>it's science, believe me!
kek keep trying brainlet
I bet you repeated the same pseudoscience test to get below 140p.
Brainlets, kek

> can't even ace an IQ test
> calls others brainlet
oh poor child...

>supports IQ pseudoscience
>denies IQ results
My sides
Keep trying brainlet

I need to go for like 2 hours to pick someone up bro.
laters

ciao

It's the same reason why it's considered a sign of intelligence to create/use a shoddy sharp stick or makeshift hook for food but not to spin a complex geometrical web for both stationary trapping and mobile casting trapping for food.

Because we fucking say so op, deal with it.

as a human you are acustomed to spotting differences within humans. In fact, the two humans you chose are overly similar in almost every capacity.
Also, there is no standard definition of what constitutes aa subspecies. Biologists define the category as differently with different species purely for immediate convenience, whatever it may be.

You would be hard pressed to argue both weren't a sign of intelligent thought if originated by a human.

Its because sub-species is an ill-defined and generally unscientific term. All we're doing when we define something as a subspecies is saying "hey these two animals, although being similar and able to interbreed, look slightly different." Sub-species has no intrinsic scientific meaning.

Even the term species has the same problems, though not to as great an extent. We usually define it as "species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring" which means grizzlies and polar bears are the same species, as are lions and tigers, etc etc.

That said, the reason we don't categorize humans as subspecies is mainly societal, as well as the fact that sufficient genetic mixing would render the point moot anyway. Grizzly + Polar = Grolar, which are a distinct breed of bear because the two parents have evolved in sexual isolation, which humans never have. No human is a purebred, no human falls under a distinct racial category to the exclusion of all others. Take an ancestry test and see if anyone gets a 100% on any category. We're all mutts, so sub-species labels would be counterproductive.

From a scientific standpoint, we COULD define different races as subspecies, but the nomenclature isn't good and it wouldn't be a good idea from a biological perspective.