The scientific definition as to whether or not something is the same species is whether or not two similar creatures can interbreed and have viable offspring. That is a "politically" correct answer. Not a scientifically correct one. For example, bobcats and lynx are said to be two different species of cat. Yet, depending on the paring, they can interbreed and have viable offspring. There are lots of different species that can interbreed and have viable offspring. Such as Eastern wolves and coyotes. But Western wolves and coyotes can't. White tail deer and mule deer are so similar that they can probably interbreed and have viable offspring. The same probably holds true for bottle nose dolphins and spotted dolphins. I will tell you what truly defines a "species." A long time ago, a species of finch managed to make it to the Galapagos islands. Once there, for the most part, they weren't isolated from each other. Yet over time, this species of bird diverged into different species of bird. They took on different physical attributes suited to exploit different ecological niches. Near the beginning of this process, there obviously fewer differences between these birds than there are, for example, between Whites and negroes. But they still managed to diverge. Obviously, at the beginning of this process, what constituted a separate species had to be little more than a state of mind. Because that state of mind actually led to there being actual different species by anybody's definition. So let me run that by you again. What constitutes a separate species is little more than a state of mind. What does this mean in human terms? Well in our culture, the evil of having a multi-ethnic society and racemixing is often promoted. This can only lead to species convergence. What makes it evil is that in the rest of nature, species divergence is the rule. Also, to me, there is little difference between culture, custom and ecological niche. These must also be allowed to diverge that some might find a path to evolutionary success. Another thing is that in zoology, every different kind of creature is given its own unique zoological classification. If there are any for the different species of human, they aren't taught. They do exist, but are hard to pin down. So for Whites, I will give them the zoological classification of Homo aryanus, For Orientals, it will be Homo mongolus. For negroes, it will be Homo negrosis. There are many severely misguided people out there who will say that the only difference between the different species of human is skin color. But there is far more difference going on than that. To help prove my point a little, I will include some pictures.
Racism gets SO desperate. Your Lynx thing only points out that not every life form has a well supported classification. In fact, there are changes over time to correct various cases when a better classification is identified. That doesn't mean that the definition of "species" is wrong. It just means that not every application is absolutely correct. And, when you start assigning species names to humans, you could not possibly be more unjustified.
You are just monumentally confused here. Remember that our human population contains about 2% Neanderthal genes - proving that modern man interbred with Neanderthals, and thus we are not a separate species from Neanderthals. Also, note that there is no problem with intermarriage and resulting families throughout the total population of earth. We are ALL in this together. Your attempts to screw that up are seriously vile.
We now have a better way to understand human variation by using Y-DNA haplotypes and human variation was caused by haplogroup mutations. On the chart above, Y-chromosome Adam represents our common ancestor. Europeans split from Africans and Asians with the emergence of haplogroup F around 45,000 BP. Nordic people mostly carry haplogroup I, while haplogroup J is primarily found in the Middle East and Southern Europe. Haplogroup R is the Indo-European haplotype, while its sister haplogroup Q is common among Native Americans. Haplogroup O is typically East Asian and the majority of East Asians belong to haplogroup O. Its sister haplogroup N is a Finno-Ugric haplotype common in Finland and Russia, which shows that East Asians are genetically close to Northern Europeans.
Just to digress slightly, can forum members tell me if there's something wrong with me?- I'm a white male and have never felt the least bit attracted to black or brown women and would never want to make love to them. It's as if my DNA is hardwired to only find white women attractive, am I a freak or what?
Populations have far more divisions than that. Wealthy, working class, artistic, academic, scientific, religious, political, etc., etc. We find people rejecting others based on all sorts of criteria.
Well, part of the species definition is that they interbreed and form viable offspring under natural circumstances. Please show your evidence that species divergence is the rule. Please take your pseudo-Scientific white supremacy elsewhere.
Source for the above. John Mayer? You're on this site? Probably not your DNA, but has something to do with your upbringing.
It is pure and ugly racism, but it is 100% scientific, it just reiterates position of Theory of Evolution regarding the decent of man.
It's hardly pseudo-science. There are specific diseases that are congenital to people of Semitic decent that are actively research funded.
Desperate? It that a new synonym for "right?" And if in zoology, every type of creature is given its own unique zoological name, no matter how similar it is to another kind of creature, why shouldn't the same thing be done for different species of human.
Because there is only one race of humans - the human race. Can't understand why racists and racialists (to be polite) can't quite grasp this fundamental fact of nature. Only those of the same "species" can breed, or didn't you know that?
right out of the KKK textbook of grossly exaggerated racist garbage. Unless of course your entire world view is based on your own limited anecdotal experience. Why do you think white people spend billions on trying look as black/brown as possible?
You just need to learn a little biology and some anthropology. You're struggling with questions that have been answered for a long, long time now. Regardless, you should start working on that problem you have with bigotry.
Yep, a yorkie can breed with a poodle. You get a porkie. LOL. We also have broken down homo sapiens sapiens into something like dog breeds, but instead of calling them breeds, it seemed nice to call them races. Races like dog breeds can interbreed because they are of the same species. So, if you were gonna go on a blind date, and you were a 7 foot tall white Nordic looking dude, you might find it valuable information if you were to find out before hand your blind date was a pigmy. Doesn't mean you would back out, but you would not faint from shock when she showed up. Information, racial info has some value. Being human beings we sort everything into groups. We want to know what kind of meat is being served us, in case we do not like venison. Or dog. LOL
At least you've gotten far enough to accept the fact that we are all of one "race" - the human race. The environmental adaptations seen the the various human "breeds" is not in and of itself a reason for 500 years or so of european world domination. Its far more an accident of geography and timing. As for your meat metaphor, I find it just a tad sociopathic.
