2nd issue of the motion interactive "choose next panel" comic3.95 / 5.00 18,330 Views
Stealth goes in every field AGAIN!3.88 / 5.00 12,829 Views
Kill a shitload of ninjas, fair enough?3.87 / 5.00 36,084 Views
According to taxonomic classification, a is a group of organisms that can reproduce together and produce fertile offspring.
A subspecies is a further classification, but members of different subspecies can reproduce viably. There are two subspecies known, homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens idaltu. Some have suggested that Neanderthals were a subspecies of Homo sapiens as well.
Why aren't races classified biologically by subspecies?
I mean, blacks have very dissimilar appearences to whites and Asians or Indians.
You can denote several different physical features in different races other than skin color.
Blacks have dark skin, flat noses, big dicks etc.
Asians have tiny penises, light skin, slanted eyes, you get the picture.
I don't believe it's all cultural, there has to be some genetics involved.
Because the genetics involved in these differing looks is so minute that's it's not worth or viable to use as a method of classification.
A black guy and asian girl could be genetically closer than that same blcak guy compared to another black guy.
None of it is cultural, culture refers to the behavioural patterns, norms, values and beliefs of a set of people. Of course it has all to do with genetics, and adaptation. Black people's skin pigment is due to where the original negro population resided, close to the equator, they evolved a dark pigment in order to survive in the environment they were living in. The same goes for the chinese, and most of any other different cultures. You'll find that most people in europe probably look about the same, because after the continents split up, travel between was a bit difficult, so no-one could go between countries and shag a foreigner, and put their DNA in their gene pool, so similarities begun to emerge. Most people's genes are probably the same in the looks department, as incest was probably very prominent back then, meaning that more and more people had the same features, which eventually grew into a whole 'race' of people who look like that.
E-Mail The above post can in no way be held against the user in a court of law. So fuck you Po-Leeece.
Just because a trait like skin color or eye shape is highly visible doesn't mean it really is caused by that big of a change at the genetic level.
These traits aren't fantastically different enough to cause the need of subspecies, anyway.
I know the genetics defining looks is specific, I meant that the total of an individuals genes, not just the looks, can be viably closer to those who look different than another who looks alot alike. The only point I was trying to make was that the genes associated with looks is very minute compared to the rest of our genetic code.
I did research. Apparently you did research too, but maybe I researched for longer because I have the answer.
Here it says:
The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.
Different cultures of humans interbreed to a great extent, though I guess that's debatable. So maybe it's debatable whether humans can be separated into subspecies. Maybe not.
...................or we are just the same species with different characteristics..................
humans originated in africa.........we became darker to protect from the sun..........only diff,
everything else that we have was purposefully changed during slavery.........
we are not subspecies
why i am here?
i do not know
Race comes after subspecies. The difference isn't enough to make us go into different subspecies. Races are also debated. Some scientists approve, some scientists say they're just things we made up. Apparently one argument is there are too many gradients for race to be a good classifier.
Its like different breeds of dogs. A doberman and a poodle look totally different but can breed and have some mutted ass puppy.
At 11/8/06 12:49 AM, Deadpool wrote: Its like different breeds of dogs. A doberman and a poodle look totally different but can breed and have some mutted ass puppy.
We haven't changed that drastically though, according to evolution. We are not quite as diverse in size, shape, and color as dogs (when it comes to race, that is). And you can't breed some species of dogs with others.
You can breed any dog with any dog as long as their dick fits in the other dogs vagina. Dogs are just more different looking because we artifially evolved them to suit our needs.
If people of different races couldn't breed and produce (fertile) offspring, then we could be divided into subspecies.
Every thread I touch, dies.
At 11/7/06 07:16 PM, KemCab wrote:Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloids, Dravidians, and Native Americans.That's a general classification, but at least it simplifies it a bit.
Not entirely correct, only three races exist: Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid, all other humans are considered mutations or combinations of those three, bringing the total number of "distinct" types of humans to roughly 12-16 depending on which characteristics you consider defining. Absolutely none of them however are different enough to qualify as sub-species. If there's a sub-sub-species classification, then the top three would probably JUST qualify.
Incidently, those top three distinctions are made base on bone structure and general appearance. Attempts to define further "races" are pointlessly divisive. Jews, for instance, are not a race.
At 11/8/06 03:48 AM, capn-g wrote: Jews, for instance, are not a race.
They are, however, Jews.