Do humans have subspecies?

just like how cats have different fur colours and sizes
we are like that

There are enough people who interbreed. Remember that the evolution and speciation of species happens on evolutionary time frames. We are talking about time frames between ten thousand to millions of years here.

I am talking out of my ass with this, but I assume you can give it maybe a thousand years at most of current levels of race mixing and you won't find any separate races anymore. In-group preferences aren't strong enough to prevent it in my opinion, at least judging by the USA and other western nations with large minority populations. You would be hard pressed to find a multi-generational native white guy in the US without black ancestors in his family tree.

Cats are polytypic

I'm not all that certain. People very rarely mix races.

Aboriginals split off from European and Asian populations 75,000 years ago, while Asian and Europeans split a mere 24,000.
That's plenty of time to classify as a subspecies.

2.9% of american citizens self-identify as mixed-race (there are probably way more than that). As long as we have a constant rate of 2.9% of new babies being born mixed race, then we must end up with a growing percentage of mixed race people in the country overall. Like two fluids that only very slowly mix unless stirred, but eventually given enough time the two fluids become a homogeneous solution.

Unless you have some reason to assume that race mixing would slow down over time, or you could somehow supply more pure-bred specimen from outside, then I can't really see how it wouldn't happen naturally.

True, and a mixed races individual has better chances of reproducing with a pure one, and as long as that 2-3% exists it'll continue to happen.
This can be seen today with Mestizos "Latinas" (half white half amerindians) being really hot to white folks, and Asians as well. Amerindians came from Asiatic populations and Asiatic populations recently diverged from European ones, so it's sensible that the differences are less profound enough that reproduction is viable.

I'm more interested in Aboriginal and secluded African populations like Pigmies that are likely to continue to diverge.

That and the Apocalypse will break down global connections.

Meant to reply to

Pigmies might have a chance to stay distinct and split off further if their current level of protection and separation stays intact.

But aborigines are in too much in contact with the regular australian population, many have already integrated into regular society. And the numbers of traditional aborigines is dwindling. Not to mention the forced integration programs in the 19. and 20. century where aboriginal children were taken away from their parents to grow up as 'white children'.

Like I said a few hundred years ago I might have agreed with you.

The question is not whether humans have subspecies, but why you care so much.

No, we don't. The Bell curve graphs are fake Stormfront shit. Believe in fairy tales if you want. Just stop shitposting them every day. It gets old.

Go try shilling on /pol/, it doesn't work here maggot.

Knowledge is power and not seeking it makes you a fucking faggot.

>The question is not whether humans have subspecies, but why you care so much.
Why does that matter?

official answer no
pol answer yes

It will give us some insight on why there's another thread like this every other day

Humans generally arent considered to be divided into subspecies because there are no clear boundaries between racial/ethnic groups

Go and take your shill bullshit back to the 'ddit you fucking bitchfaggot.

in my mind it's kind of like this:
Sub-Saharan Africans = Homo sapiens
Eurasians = Homo sapiens + Homo neanderthalensis
Southeastern Asians and Oceanians = Homo sapiens + Homo neanderthalensis + Denisova hominin

I think we're living very interesting times with the new revelations on how the 2-5% of neanderthal DNA actually has affected eurasian populations and so on

Fuck off moron.

The simplest thought, like the concept of the number one, is an elaborate logical underpinning.

>how the 2-5% of neanderthal DNA actually has affected eurasian populations and so on
by giving some of them a lot of non-coding dna, shorter height and more body hair
and so on

Oh boy, another thinly veiled /pol/ thread

>by giving some of them a lot of non-coding dna, shorter height and more body hair
Actually by giving us different quality of nails and hair, also freckles are due to neanderthal genes

You must be delusional. There is a correlation between race and IQ, this has been demonstrated several times. The biggest question (a question racists tend to see as already solved) is whether this is because of genetics or environmental factors/poverty.

Reminder that niggers are subhuman

"Race" literally means "subspecies" brainlets.

>fucking /pol/ threads

>thinks bell curve is all about race
confirmed for knowing jackshit
The APA verified the text-twice- with no issues found.

if you were to go by phenotype, an obese person who says inside all day and a thin person who works under the sun all day would qualify as difference subspecies.

being fat has about the same heritability as iq

yes but it is not typically a relevant variation.

incredible if true

i am racially conscious now, the quality of my nails is superb

are you trying to say IQ isn't genetic? Because being fat definitely isn't, just eat less you disgusting slob.

google twin studies on being fat
iq isn''t completely genetic, 50% of the difference in iq between two people is explained by genes, gwas studies

why do you post in genetics threads when you have no idea what's going on

...

Eating more is heritable.
Culture is heritable.
Something being highly heritable doesn't mean it's caused by genes. It means difference in phenotypes tends to correspond to a genetic difference.
If I'm born to a family that overeats, I'll probably be overfed too. But that doesn't mean there exists a causal relationship between my genes and my overeating.
In fact it's the same with IQ. We have to be careful what we mean when we say genes are responsible for a trait. Something highly heritable may be more sensibly the result of an environmental difference that simply corresponds to a genetic difference.

Yes because humans together makes a species meaning genetic divisions are subspecies.

go away lamarck

Then explain gaps in intelligence when factors such as environment and income are controlled for. Oh wait you won't because even though the methods are valid it goes against the 'we are all equal' bullshit which your masters use to push open borders and the like.

...

>wah wah why haven't geneticists banned interracial marriage yet

First time I ever made this thread

>I have nothing to offer the thread, because I'm an intellectual coward and a brainlet who premtivly avoids uncomfortable truths
Either make your refusal or fucking leave you leftist shitposters

He didn't say that

Furthermore, you haven't disproven him.

he expects some sort of a racially motivated policy making, it's in his post
and there is no grounds for that even if you take the most right wing hbd blogposts on face value

the 'disproving' is in the thread for him to read

All he asked for was for you to explain gaps in intelligence, nothing more. You extrapolated anything else out of thin air.

Nothing in the thread so far has proven that humans don't have subspecies, only complaining that some people are asking.

>All he asked for was for you to explain gaps in intelligence
>nothing more
but he said
>bullshit which your masters use to push open borders and the like.
which strongly implies he wants an immigration policy with a racial agenda

>Nothing in the thread so far has proven that humans don't have subspecies, only complaining that some people are asking.
the point was about how genetic iq actually is, which has been addressed
this was his request
>Then explain gaps in intelligence
this is explained itt - according to gwas studies an iq gap is 50% explainable by genes

as for subspecies, which is much less consequential than intelligence differences:
>Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[9] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[10] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[11][12][13][14][15]

>Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[16] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour that has not been invalidated as a taxonomic construct,[17] others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[18] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[19][20]

we have had this thread many, many times, i encourage you to look through the Veeky Forums archive as well as all other archive servers out there for more information that doesn't come from race warriors

>but he said
>>bullshit which your masters use to push open borders and the like.
>which strongly implies he wants an immigration policy with a racial agenda
he was calling you out on what looked to be a leftist bias, a conclusion he arrived to on the basis that it looked like you were the same poster as , who only cared about the politics of it at hand and not the biological interest.
I think it was fair on his part to think you had a political bent, but if you renounce that now then that is that.

>the point was about how genetic iq actually is, which has been addressed
>this was his request
I see here is where he deviated a bit from the overall point of the thread, he chose to focus on specifically on intelligence, but the thread was dedicated to the overall assessment of the identification of subspecies. I assumed this is still the overall fact being debated, one in which it appears you believe to be that homo sapiens is monotypic.

>>Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications.[16] While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour that has not been invalidated as a taxonomic construct,[17] others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[18] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[19][20]
i see three points made in this:
>1. the lines are blurry
in which i reply that despite that hazziness, there are very clear differences within homo sapiens sapiens nonetheless. only a fool would argue against this clear fact.
CONT

>who only cared about the politics of it at hand
is that the guy you are white knighting you mean

CONT
>2. it doesn't matter
irrelevant, and only a political pandering. Does it matter if we identify subspecies in ravens then? This is science, not politics. You decide what the implications are, this is knowldege for knowledge's sake.

>3. we are the same subspecies
which is being debated.
personally, we've discovered that subspecies can develop over a mountain range, homo sapiens has traveled globally and has only within a grievously recent time have we begun to reconnect. We're here to debate the specifics, but how we can say that all homo sapiens are the same to being the same SUBSPECIES is pretty silly.

??
i just said, it was who made this a political talk

so did the guy you are defending, but you are too biased to see it

do you browse /pol/

>muh malnutrition

cant explain a 32 point IQ gap between niggers and whites.

>so did the guy you are defending, but you are too biased to see it
because he made the appropriate reply. if you truly cared, you would take a stance against the poster he replied to.

>do you browse /pol/
nah, i browse /k/, and /int/, but namely Veeky Forums.
anthropology got me interested in this topic, so i made a thread.

>we have this thread every day

No. Generally, the cutoff for subspecies is that the populations have to have a Fst above around 0.3-0.4 depending on the populations. Humans have an overall Fst of about 0.15

>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.
>but they do not usually interbreed in nature
>in nature

There's your problem, unless we define what "in nature" means the definition can not apply accurately to humans.

What does "in nature" specifically mean here? The natural world in general in the absence of human intervention or technology? Or just the natural world including human action?

Does the sub-species classification go away once contact between two populations is established? How long does it take for the sub-species classification to return after separation?

Are you a certified taxonomist op?

>Humans have an overall Fst of about 0.15
>the cutoff for subspecies is that the populations have to have a Fst above around 0.3-0.4 depending on the populations
where can i read this? this is the sort of meat of the topic at hand i am looking for.
the simplistic definition that Wikipedia have me supported human subspecies, but I'd like to get into this. What i got from 'Is Homo Sapiens Polytypic' is that we had a variation of 0.7.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

More recently, the International HapMap Project estimated FST for three human populations using SNP data. Across the autosomes, FST was estimated to be 0.12. The significance of this FST value in humans is contentious. As an FST of zero indicates no divergence between populations, whereas an FST of one indicates complete isolation of populations, Anthropologists often cite Lewontin's 1972 work which came to a similar value and interpreted this number as meaning there was little biological differences between human races.[6] On the other hand, while an FST value of 0.12 is lower than that found between populations of many other species, Henry Harpending argued that this value implies on a world scale a "kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings".[7]

the only recommendation you can make from this is dismantling affirmative action, ungifted colored should be just as scrutinized as ungifted whites.

>There's your problem, unless we define what "in nature" means the definition can not apply accurately to humans.
>What does "in nature" specifically mean here? The natural world in general in the absence of human intervention or technology? Or just the natural world including human action?
>Does the sub-species classification go away once contact between two populations is established? How long does it take for the sub-species classification to return after separation?
good questions, because if we still were seperated like we have been for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years then it would a given, but with further contact between people we previously had not the differences may be less pronounced
>Are you a certified taxonomist op?
nope, that's why i made the thread

A common argument i have found is that Homo Sapiens has a genetic variation that is the same as other species' who are considered to be polytypic.

Does this hold true?

>calls put /pol/ for what it is
>immediately called faggot and gets (you)'s with "much IQ"

/pol/ is the actual lowest IQ board

In biological terms, rather than in relation to nomenclature, a polytypic species has two or more subspecies, races, or more generally speaking, populations that need a separate description.[7] These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which may interbreed if given the chance to do so. These subspecies, races, or populations, can be named as subspecies by zoologists, or in more varied ways by botanists and microbiologists.

A monotypic species has no distinct population or races, or rather one race comprising the whole species. A taxonomist would not name a subspecies within such a species. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:

1.All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.

2.The individuals vary considerably, but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.

3.The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.

this ought to be clear

>>calls put /pol/ for what it is
it was an honest biological discussion, and then it came in with offense at the implications?
why the FUCK is it /pol/? because it has vague racial connotations?

>1.All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.
at least on a surface level humans clearly vary
>2.The individuals vary considerably, but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.
these differences don't seem to be random, there are common factors among humans from different parts of the earth
>3.The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious.
this part interests me the most. we seem to have a decently stable gene flow, but a decently long one. there are noticeable differences. is there any concrete line for when a subspecies can be said to be such, or is it all circumstantial?

I think you could make the case that some pygmy people are well on their way becoming different species or atleast subspecies.

Consider african pygmies who reach senescence in their 30s, are

Humans may have sub species, but we're super mixed, and its been that way for a long time. I don't know of any example of a "pure" ethnic strain for any people group, but I might be wrong.
However we can still tell where people come from based on DNA. A blood sample can tell what kind of person you are, what your bone structure would generally look like, and a plethora of further implications. We can even determine general ethnicity and gender based on skeletal measurements. There are very clear distinctions between ethnic groups on the high level.
If you look at the lower level you can find certain people may not have a given gene, while others do. Some people can drink milk into adulthood, and metabolize large amounts of alcohol without issue, others cant, and we know this is a genetic component.

The issues at hand are that there is a high degree of intermixing with ethnic groups, and our systems of classification are lacking.

>let me use the anonymity to support myself on a anime website

Truly sad.

i don't know desu
it's just a couple of genes that was selected for with them - and actually there's two pygmy groups in africa who are small, but using different adaptations, that happened independently

they're not that different from other africans, with the exception of being smaller

>give it maybe a thousand years at most of current levels of race mixing and you won't find any separate races anymore

I have some bad news for you, kike.

>IQs of 50 on average
I don't think you know what an IQ of 50 means. IQs in the 70s are considered retarded-tier. Not even people with Down's Syndrome score so low.

Just go to remote areas.
I fail to see how a remote village in Norway could be mixed.

I don't know but I'm going to say yes because that supports the biases I already have and it's me feel more confident about them.

Somehow I feel your disingenuous

you'll be bred out of existence kiddo, deal with it

if they lost weight and shit they'd look just like what you consider human but with darker skin

Let's not let facts get into the way of hating darkies...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_enumeration

> You must be delusional.
I'm not the one holding onto fake graphs and false data because it makes me feel superior to someone else.

> this has been demonstrated several times.
It's funny how the same people who swear up and down and round and round that the IQ correlation is fact have yet to produce a SINGLE scientific source to it.

Just because something is shitposted over and over does not make it true.

You best be joking. It's happening all the time, as long as culture doesn't prevent it. Look up population in Madagascar, or south America.

Only aboriginal societies could be considered 100% "pure" nowadays, and it's mostly due to isolation from other ethnic groups.

The Bell Curve remains definitive, The APA couldn't even naysay. You can't really argue the what of statistical evidence, only the why and how. IQ is as hereditary and as undemocratic as athleticism, which is why equalitarians treat it as anathema,

A 70 iq asian or caucasian would probably have serious cognitive problems that don't show up in a standard iq test, but which cripples them even worse than low iq does.

A 50 iq pygmy would probably be neurologically healthy otherwise, able to cope in their own environment quite well. They might lack capabilities for abstract reasoning, math, planning etc, but these traits have been eliminated from gene pool due to the benefits (not obvious in rainforest) not justifying higher energy consumption and longer childhood.

>but these traits have been eliminated from gene pool
source?

Spotted the manlet chink. Go back to r/asian"masculinity"bitch.

what you spotted is a white false flagger who thinks whites are being 'bred out of existence' - a common meme

but you knew that already

said white is right for the wrong reasons.
whites nationally have below replacement birth rates- this is because they drank the ovary-shriveling kool-aid of feminism first. women are working and sterilizing themselves during their fertilie years now, they only had the headstart.

what
whites will probably be minorities in usa and brazil, but a majority overall on the continent
the same, but much more so is true for europe and australia
that's if you have a pretty purist definition of white

if you use caucasian(which is the scientific term), you get significant footholds in east asia as well as north africa

those are some facts

white denotes the european subset of Caucasians, don't shift the goalposts here. anyways when whites are only a plurality, but a minority of the progeny, who assimilates to whom?

>capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature
>in nature

"In nature" here means in the absence of human interference.
This is a meaningless term as applied to humans.

>white denotes the european subset of Caucasians
White is in the eye of the beholder.
>european
A hundred years ago, most people wouldn't have counted Irish or Italian people as white, and plenty of people still don't consider Spaniards or Easter Euros to be white.

>white denotes the european subset of Caucasians
what makes spaniards the same as russians - they are caucasian first and foremost

white is a social construct, caucasian isn't
basically you shifted the goalposts and projected

they're recalling that meme mate.

pic related
albino afghan