Why don't biologists recognize subspecies in humans?

why don't biologists recognize subspecies in humans?

Other urls found in this thread:

britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens-sapiens
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

>species
>having more species within a species
I don't think you know what these words mean.

Because it would hurt people's precious little feelings and anyone who brings it up will quickly find themselves out of a job.

I don't think you know what 'sub' means, you fucking retard.

Taxonomy is really arbitrary, as you can see, some species of lower genetic variation have subspecies, while others don't. Though I suppose you could argue genetic variation isn't important within a certain threshold, when compared to the actual behaviour (for example, a big genetic difference could be in appearance, with little to no functional difference). Taxonomy isn't really scientific, it's historical, and rather random. It is hard to make clear definitions for dividing lifeforms (especially animals) because it's hard to say what really makes them fit into a given group and not another. Even when considering species, it is hard. Usually the stock answer is "if they can produce fertile offspring" but many differing "species" can and have interbred and produced fertile offspring.

Subspecies is one of the most subjective and random classifications, though it doesn't really mean anything, it's just a way to break up groups of animals to make them easier to box and comprehend. It has no bearing on anything, so it's not really an issue.

Why do you so desperately want human subspecies, if it means nothing?

Are you autistic?

a. It has not been proven
b. To maintain peace and order for the better good

This. It is valid to use word sub- prefix followed by a name to indicate a subgroup of that name.

>why don't biologists recognize subspecies in humans?
Political correctness: We might be forced to admit that white ethnic replacement is simply genocide.

>To maintain peace and order for the better good
Translation: shut up and die out quietly, you white scum.

>>/pol/
Weak bait

Interracial births are rare senpai, just have more kids if you're so worried about that

All races are part of the only living subspecies of homo sapiens
Our subspecies is called homo sapiens sapiens

The same goes for dogs. All dogs are part of subspecies Canis lupus familiaris

britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens-sapiens

I once tried to classify humans and ended up with something like this

Species:Homo Sapien 200,000 B.C
Subspecies:E-Idaltu 170,000 B.C
Subsubspecies:E-Capoid 120,000 B.C
Subsubspecies: Temoid 110,000 B.C Last common ancestor of all humans

It the splits
Subsubsubspecies:Remoid 100,000 BC
Subsubsubsubspecies:Likoid 93,000 B.C
Subsubsubsubsubspecies:Congoid 85,000 B,C
Subsubsubsubspecies:Midoid 93,000 B.C
Subsubsubsubsubspecies:Pgymoid 85,000 B,C

Subsubsubspecies:Caloid 100,000 B.C First Eurasian humans
Subsubsubsubspecies: Amoid 93,000 B.C.
Subsubsubsubsubspecies:Kitoid 85,000 BC
Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Proto Australoid 75,000 BC
Subsubsubsubsubspecies: Geroid 85,000 BC
Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Australoid 75,000 BC
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Zinoid 66.000 BC
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Areloid 66,000 B.C
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Crakoid 54,000 B.C
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:
Nigoid 54,000 B.C
Subsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Homoid 75,000 BC
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubpecies:Glanoid 66,000 BC
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Ainuoid 54,000 B.C
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies:Eurasoid 54,000 B.C
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies(Race): Caucasoid 48,000 BC
Subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsubspecies(Race):Mongoloid 48,000BC

As you can see the Races are:
Caucasoid
Mongoloid
Jungle Negro
Savanna Negro
Desert Negro
Australian Australoid(Abos
Indonesian Australoid
Malay Australoid(Negrito)
Indian Australoid
Proto Australoid(Sentinelese/Jarawa)

Because that would be raciz user!

>Are you autistic?
on the spectrum, probably.
>Why do you so desperately want human subspecies, if it means nothing?
because i feel like i've been lied to about race and genetics my whole life and now i'm trying to educate myself. i'm wary of falling for racist propaganda though.
>why?

They did. But how did you escape the lab?

1. Biologists use different definitions of species depending on the type of biologist they are. There are tons of different concepts to choose from.
2. The biological species concept is the most widely accepted if what defines a species; however, it's flaws are that you can't test asexually reproducing species, fossils, and even hybrids sometimes can produce fertile offspring.
3. Then when creating a tree, we need to determine the traits we're weighing to define a sub-species is different enough to be considered different.

I think it's reasonable to accept there are differences between races because there has been geographic isolation between people, surely enough time has passed for a Northern European who is subject to different environmental pressures than someone Central Africa. If more time passed with isolation, we probably would be considered different species...Maybe in the distant future because at the moment there is both geographic and behavioral isolation between Europeans and Africans.

I'm still in my General Biology II course, so I don't know anything yet, but this is just what I think at the moment.

species isnt really an actual thing, its more of an arbitrary category to make biology easier. we have ethnic categories for humans and they are much more accurate of a category than species

Because a specie is a group of individuals with similar traits that can reproduce between themself and make fertile descendency

How do you test asexual species, fossils, and what about the 2% of mules who are fertile offspring?

It's controversial