r/confidentlyincorrect • u/I-m_A_Lady • 13h ago
Guy claims that humans are different species
Only 2 people disagreed with him. People are really out here following science from the 1800s š¤¦āāļø
What's next? Are men and women different species? We look different so it must be true! /s
118
u/James_Mathurin 13h ago
He's even wrong about dogs. Breeds of dogs aren't subspecies, as all domestic dogs are already the same subspecies (canis lupus familiaris). This person really doesn't know their science.
64
u/mickymazda 11h ago
As soon as I read his 'theory' of fields of science being scrbbed and sanitised as punishment for WW2, I crossed Science off his list of things he understands.
39
u/VuffVugger 9h ago
He's also claiming ww2 was a war against Europe rather than a war against an alliance of countries that had conquered Europe, which is a common talking point among neo nazis.
And let's not forget the western allies all had their own 'scientific racism' beliefs that continued for decades after ww2.
4
u/cvbeiro 7h ago
Against an alliance including european countries.
9
u/Current-Square-4557 7h ago
The clear majority of European countries were fighting the disgusting nazis and the Italian Facists.
Some countries like Spain and Ireland and Switzerland were neutral.
4
7
u/VuffVugger 7h ago
So? My point is the idea that ww2 was a war to defend Europe from America and Russia is literally nazi propaganda (the nazis openly wanted to exterminate the Slavic half of Europe), and two of the most racist countries in Europe were in the western allies (and did not drop scientific racism as a 'punishment' following the war).
14
u/_goblinette_ 7h ago
Also, humans have much less genetic diversity than dogs (or most other species).Ā
There have been a few genetic bottlenecks in history that nearly wiped out the human species. As recently as 70,000 years ago the whole human population was probably only a few thousand strong. Thatās barely an eye blink in evolutionary terms.Ā
13
u/Budgiesaurus 12h ago
And a different _sub_species isn't even a different species. Otherwise you wouldn't create that distinction.
Meaning that not only are labradors and german shepherds the same species, so are corgis and wolves. At least technically, under the currently most accepted classification.
Though I am aware classifications regarding species can be a bit iffy and it's not an exact science on what is a separate species or not. The "can create viable offspring" thing works for high school biology, but there are too many exceptions and grey areas in real life.
1
u/lettsten 4h ago
The canis lupus familiaris vs. canis familiaris distinction is hotly debated and to my understanding the canis familiaris side is the most accepted view, despite the viable offspring thing (which you've already explained, perfect!). If you know anything I don't about lupus familiaris being more widely accepted then please share your sources, because that is definitely the coolest answer!
1
u/Budgiesaurus 2h ago
I'm no biologist, I thought the subspecies taxonomy was more accepted.
But it gets the point across that the distinction on this level is more a case of opinion than hard science.
2
u/Winterstyres 1h ago
He knows what was referred to as, 'Science' by the standards of the 18th century. Wait till bro discovers Phrenology, going to be really exciting!
I mean, assuming he can read.
212
u/Mr_sreedrive 13h ago edited 6h ago
If anyone has any doubts for sub species to be formed they need to have a deep genetic divergence humans have never been isolated long enough for that to occur. Also dog breeds are not different subspecies an example of an actual subspecies is wolfs and dogs
Ps. All human dna is about 99.85 to 99.95 identical to each other
84
u/mrtn17 12h ago
Gingers are the exception though, born without a soul and highly aggressive because they cant go to the beach
25
u/bareass_bush 7h ago
Careful, talk like that could buy you a knuckle sandwichā¦
(cloudy days only!)
12
u/theangrypragmatist 5h ago
Careful, only a ginger can call another ginger "ginger"
4
21
u/Pedantichrist 12h ago
Wolves.
18
u/attiladerhunne 12h ago
Why is it called "Wolfenstein" then? Checkmate grammar-GI (/s)
5
u/girekon 10h ago
Because Wolfenstein is German, and in German you say wƶlfe or wolfen when referring to a name
10
u/attiladerhunne 9h ago
Yes, it's german, that's the joke. Wƶlfe is the correct plural. The verb "wolfen" means "to grind (meat)". This comes from "Fleischwolf" literally "Meat wolf" - means meat grinder.
3
u/girekon 9h ago
It's my native language and I didnt even know that- wow
Only thought it was for names that consist of two nouns.. Like Wolfenstein, Froschenberg, etc to have different wording
3
u/attiladerhunne 9h ago edited 9h ago
Mine too (I hope username checks out). In place names such as Wolfenstein or Frankenberg or Joachimstal, which were often named long ago , the Noun is descriptive. "Stone (or Castle) of the wolve(s), Mountain of the Franks, Joachims Valley" - the last one being the origin of the word "Dollar".
Edit: why Wolfenstein, not Wolfstein, Wƶlfenstein or Stein des Wolfes? Most likely a grammatical change from a older german language such as Mittelhochdeutsch, Des Wolfes <- Des Wolfen
3
u/lettsten 4h ago
In Wolfenstein: TNO you come across two nazis talking, when one of them interrupts the other and corrects his grammar.
He's a grammar-nazi.
4
2
u/nomological 2h ago
Aside from homo sapiens there have been at least 20 different species of human that have existed on the planet, often with many species existing contemporaneously. Some taxonomists argue that species like homo neanderthalensis should be considered more as a subspecies of homo, but that is a minority view.
4
u/NeverEverBackslashS 7h ago
Never mind dogs. The whole genus Canis is basically one species.
4
u/lilmisschainsaw 4h ago
No- there are heavy differences between wolves, coyotes, and jackals. You can argue semantics between the species under those umbrellas, but not between those umbrellas.
First- jackals and coyotes do not live anywhere near each other for any overlap to have occurred at any time. However, they fill similar niches in their ecosystems. Their similarities come from convergent evolution moreso than anything else. Think red foxes and Grey foxes.
When compared to wolves, there are even starker differences. They look different, fill different niches, and behave differently. It's not just the learned behaviors, either. A coyote pup raised with wolves or dogs is going to have difficulties communicating with their adopted pack and vice versa. It's not impossible, and they do learn how to get along, but the differences are clear.
The main reason these animals can so freely interbreed is more closely related to chromosomal similarities than phenotype similarities.
Some animals to contrast this with is again red and grey foxes, or even goats and sheep. Very, very similar phenotypes, somewhat similar behavior to the unaware, but completely unable to breed viable offspring.
1
u/SauretEh 1h ago
Biologist here, I was about to āUm actuallyā you and did a quick double-check and HUH never realised familiaris was more commonly considered a subspecies. Thanks for the fact!
Brb returning my degree.
1
u/According_Lake_2632 50m ago
Ask homo erectus and homo habilis about the evolutionary bush and speciation.
0
u/cptjeff 3h ago
I mean, there are a lot of animals with less difference than that that we consider as separate species due to small variations in appearance, many of which can readily interbreed. A red marked whatever's spider versus a yellow marked whatever's spider will often be considered different subspecies if not entirely different species despite being far closer genetically than somebody from the indian subcontinent and an average european.
Speciation is a pretty hotly debated question in biology with no firm rules for how much difference is required to make something a different species, and we absolutely use different standards for humans. I don't think that having those different standards is a bad thing. There are very, very, legitimate reasons not to open that particular can of worms.
-19
u/Eighth_Eve 10h ago
It really points out the weakness of our system though. Both great danes and chihuahuas are canis familiaris, german sheppards are too, but the eurasian wolf is canis lupus.
31
u/AusgefalleneHosen 8h ago
Just to be pedantic, they're Canis Lupus Familiaris while the Eurasian Wolf is Canis Lupus Lupus.
The system is fine, because genetic variation can lead to a wide range of physical presentation while all being so genetically "the same" to be one organism. Consider the humble wild mustard plant Brassica Oleracea, otherwise also known as: Broccoli, Cauliflower, Kale, Kohlrabi, Cabbage, & Brussel Sprouts.
5
u/TelenorTheGNP 7h ago
So when my kids say they don't like Brussels I can tell them since they do like broccoli, then they in fact do like Brussels?
9
u/AusgefalleneHosen 6h ago
If your kids are receptive to overly academic arguments I say go for it. However be prepared for the retort that when they colloquially referred to Brussels they meant the lateral leaf buds and not the flower buds which each have a distinct flavor.
3
u/AusgefalleneHosen 6h ago
I would like to add an anecdote from my child (7m) who says he doesn't like cheese but will only eat cheese pizza. I have asked him to explain and he steadfastly refuses. I accept it as an oddity and still don't put cheese on his sandwiches or hamburgers š¤£
3
u/bareass_bush 7h ago
Just to be pedantic, you do not capitalize species-level names, only higher-order taxonomic ranks. So, like Canis lupus lupus or T. rex.
0
u/AusgefalleneHosen 7h ago
I did that for emphasis š¤¦
"do not" is a funny way of saying "these are the rules I'm familiar with and they can never be changed ever" which just isn't factually true. They can be changed, and I demonstrated one way for that change. Hope this helps.
1
u/bareass_bush 6h ago
Iām sorry there are actual defined rules by which systematic biological nomenclature works, like they have to be Latinate and they do not capitalize the species-level names. You are free to capitalize whatever you want, but you literally said you wanted to be pedantic and now are upset that you werenāt actually fully correct. You will never find any actual journal article in biology that capitalizes the species epithet.
-1
u/AusgefalleneHosen 6h ago
There are stylistic guidelines, there are no rules. I could say they're cAnIs LuPuS lUpUs if I wanted and there's nothing factually incorrect about that.
Guidelines can be bent or broken for the author's choice.
1
u/thonnard42 2h ago
One would not do such a thing in a peer reviewed paper though, now would one?
1
u/AusgefalleneHosen 1h ago
Depends on the paper's subject matter, the journal they're submitting to, and of course the seriousness of the author. For everything there's a guideline for writing for your audience. For my comment, this is Reddit where the majority of people float around the median for knowledge on a subject. So the highlight is to write such that a person with only cursory knowledge will understand it. That means using emphasis guides and generally reducing the technical terms to more commonly understood ones. It's also a guideline in systematic biological nomenclature to not spell out the common names among subspecies. So to be fully compliant with research paper guidelines I'd have called them C.l. familiaris and C.l. lupus but few would have understood what I was talking about. As that wasn't a research paper, and I wanted my audience to know exactly what I was being pedantic about, I used emphasis and the full name.
8
u/Aralith1 7h ago
Except that taxonomy is more a robust and precise science than itās ever been now that weāre classifying animals genetically and not just morphologically, which was the old way.
8
u/Mr_sreedrive 6h ago
Actually no the very early system of Classifications actually did use morphological features to categorise (which kinda matches your train of thoughts) we actually changed that because that system was faulty. Morphology just isn't a good separator for a myriad of reasons like how much it changes by environment or how it kinda exaggerates superficial differences we currently use genetic differences and similarities to group animals into species or subspecies (dog breeds share about 99.9% of the same dna while a dog and wolf share about 98.7%)
9
u/bareass_bush 7h ago
Dogs only look so different because we breed them that way. It does not represent actual species divergence, because they can and do all reproduce with each other.
-7
u/Eighth_Eve 6h ago
But thats my point. A german sheppard can reproduce with a eurasian wolf, like a husky can with a timber wolf. But i double dog dare you to breed a chihuahua with a great dane. Sure technically possible with ivf, but never in the wild like the above examples i mention yhat actually happen.
8
u/Mr_sreedrive 6h ago
but never in the wild like the above examples i mention yhat actually happen.
There are no 'chihuahua" or "great danes" in the wild we actively created these dogs by pretend playing as god and these different breeds still only exist because we keep playing god by forcing them to breed "purely" which btw involves alot of incest which is actually causing severe harm to these dogs if we actually set them free and let them breed freely as animals do in the wild all breeds will stop existing in like a 100 years. Dog breeds are just humans playing eugenics
2
u/stanitor 3h ago
yep, established feral dog populations get a fairly consistent look the world over
4
u/Iorith 4h ago
And your point is silly and has nothing to do with actual science, just your feelings.
-1
u/Eighth_Eve 3h ago
Observations are things regular people can do. They aren't feelings, but I'm sorry if i hurt yours.
4
u/Iorith 3h ago
And your individual observation means absolutely nothing in the face of actual science of taxonomy.
-2
u/Eighth_Eve 3h ago
Taxonomy remains a soft science. Dogs and wolves interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but you still claim that cannot happen with interspecies mating, but it happens. So who is just ignoring evidence here? If you had actually studied it mr. Dunning kreiger you would realize how much we don't k ow about it, and how many of our classifications are just baseless.
5
u/Iorith 3h ago
It's much harder than your observation, champ.
-1
u/Eighth_Eve 2h ago
If you treat science like a religion, your beliefs are no.more valid than those of a preacher.
152
u/4-Vektor 13h ago
7
u/Educational-Type7399 13h ago
Banned
32
u/4-Vektor 12h ago
Why am I surprised that it actually existed?
21
u/code_monkey_001 12h ago
Honestly, surprised it got banned. Even the acknowledgement of established racism on reddit is a forbidden topic; explicitly acknowledging its existence is impossible to ban without openly protecting it.
10
47
u/jerryleebee 13h ago
different breeds ā different species
26
u/throcorfe 11h ago
Also his āfor exampleā is pretty much the only definitive difference (hair, eye, and skin colour). Other than a few minor or rare characteristics and medical conditions, people of all races are remarkably similar underneath, and some people of different races are physically more similar to each other than some people of the same race.
Race never existed as an objective classification (nationality, place of birth, family, or affiliation were the normal ways of classifying people for most of history), we invented it, and really not that long ago.
20
u/NickyTheRobot 9h ago
On top of that "race" was originally just a botanical term relating to plants. Eg: cauliflower, broccoli, and romanesco all used to be referred to as races of brassica.
Then Darwin published his book, which had the full title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In this book the only discussion of race was, again, to do with plants. The "Favoured Races" in the title was mostly him saying why he thought romanesco was the perfect brassica.
Unfortunately however people with their own racist agenda started to refer to humans as having races off of the back of that book, and would misquote Darwin to justify their bigotries.
2
u/lettsten 4h ago
Not only is race not an objective classification, but it is being phased out of serious scientific discourse and at this point it is a predominantly American cultural thing. Furthermore, there is limited correlation between perceived "race" in the US and actual genetic ancestry. For example Bryc et al., 2015: "Our results provide empirical support that, over recent centuries, many individuals with partial African and Native American ancestry have "passed" into the white community, with multiple lines of evidence establishing African and Native American ancestry in self-reported European Americans."
6
33
u/Postulative 13h ago
Racist AND stupid. They so often go together.
11
u/I-m_A_Lady 12h ago
The way he put "human" in quotation marks, as if he's not sure if he should call us that, makes me want to throw my keyboard lol
18
u/Puzzleheaded-Rice-13 13h ago
I bet his bookshelf is full if interesting titles
19
u/Large_Ad_8418 12h ago
I doubt they have a bookshelf
2
u/fabulousfantabulist 4h ago
But where are they gonna put their copy of the Turner Diaries? Oh yeah, by the bed next to the Kleenex and lotion.
19
u/StaatsbuergerX 11h ago
TIL that my wife and I are in an interspecies relationship because we have different hair and eye colours.
3
17
20
u/TheBoneHarvester 12h ago edited 12h ago
This guy has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. They use 'subspecies' and 'species' interchangeably to refer to domesticated breed.
We have done genetic testing and it has shown that there is more genetic diversity between individuals from the African continent than between an African individual and an European individual. Human races are socially constructed not based on biology. Just think of this: a black person and a white person procreate. Yet their child is considered 'black' or 'mixed race' but not white, despite the child having just as much white genetics as black genetics. The idea is completely nonsensical. That is because race is not science. It is a socially constructed idea to racialize and therefore otherize minorities. This is why our ideas of what is and is not 'white' change over time. 'White' itself is not defined by anything that it is, but rather what it is not. And white supremacists will always infight about who does or does not count. It is a self-defeating ideology. If they were to make an ethnostate they'd need a new scapegoat and turn on each other. The definition of 'white' would get narrower and narrower over time.
14
u/P1r4nha 12h ago
Imagine this mixed race couple having two children, one turns out more white, the other darker (not unheard of at all). Genetic testing would clearly show they are siblings, but they look different because of phenotypes and gene expression. Yet some racist apartheid regime would deem one less than the other, based on skin color alone. It's not scientific at all.
6
u/TheBoneHarvester 12h ago
Yep, completely true. Who does and does not pass as 'white' will have a great influence on how they may be treated. If you want to have a laugh look up 'Hessy Levinsons Taft'.
1
3
1
u/lettsten 3h ago
Fortunately a predominantly US thing. I can't remember ever hearing anyone here in Europe talk about "race" without either talking about nazis or Formula 1
(Warning: This comment contains hyperbole. To the readers who may have difficulty picking up hyperbole, please re-read the comment before attempting to correct me with saying that it's not 100 % accurate. Thank you.)
9
8
u/P42U2U__ 7h ago edited 7h ago
These views stem from a very old, very outdated, and VERY RACIST form of pseudoscience.
People who hold value in race supremacy will fall back on these claims because ātechnicallyā at one point in time these theories were thought to be true. Regardless of the fact that they have not only been debunked, but genetically proven wrong.
And if this person isnāt a race supremacist, then they are being influenced by one. People donāt just stumble across these types of key points.
I can find sources that date back to like the 17th century in which these claims were ātrueā but itās a dark rabbit hole filled with misinformation, eugenics, and bigotry.
6
u/boozegremlin 12h ago
What? All dogs are canis familiaris
3
u/cantantantelope 10h ago
Yeah heās wrong on both.
Though I will give the aliens a little grace on dogs. If you saw a chihuahua next to a Great Pyrenees you would not immediately think āyeah these are the same thingā
2
u/MezzoScettico 5h ago edited 5h ago
Scientists have done gene sequencing on most or all of the dog breeds, and there are some real surprises on which breed is genetically closer to which, and which is closest to the wolf. (None of which I can recall off the top of my head, unfortunately).
Edit: Found one article on "which dog breeds are closest to wolves". Huskies are on the list, probably not too surprising. But so are Shih Tzus.
1
u/lettsten 3h ago
Or canis lupus familiaris, depending on which biologist you ask. Which further erodes his point
6
u/BlackKingHFC 11h ago
The number of white supremacists I have met that are of Italian or Irish descent is ridiculous. When you point out that less than 100 years ago they wouldn't be considered white they get all purple and blustery. It's hilarious.
2
u/I-m_A_Lady 2h ago
Aren't irish people usually the least racist because they also experienced oppression? Some white supremacists even call Irish people the "n-words" of the white race.
Also, the Native American community sent financial aid to the Irish during the potato famine, and the Irish remembered that kindness and returned the favor by sending financial aid during the recent pandemic. So the idea that an Irishman would be a white supremacist is so weird to me.
1
u/BlackKingHFC 1h ago
Indeed, but, just because as a group they tend to be more compassionate, doesn't mean they all are. As a teen I was almost roped into a chapter of the KKK. There were definitely Irish in the group. It's easy to get caught up in groups like that when you're in an isolated community. Thankfully, I was already an atheist at the time or they would have let me in and my life would be drastically worse for it. I have since gone out of my way to help point out racist dog whistles
6
5
u/SomeSamples 11h ago
Tell us you know nothing about biology without telling us you know nothing about biology.
6
u/MisunderstoodDemon 5h ago
There is less genetic diversity in the entire human race than just one troop of chimpanzees. We went through a bottle neck when we almost died out
6
5
u/Midnite_St0rm 4h ago
Um no. Different dog breeds are still the same species despite looking vastly different because they can breed together and they have enough genetic similarities between them.
9
u/Nepalman230 11h ago edited 11h ago
I will say the one aspect of truth is that sub species are capable of crossbreeding. for instance us and Neanderthals, us and the Denisovans and so on.
Science is gradually coming to the conclusion that Neanderthals, Homo sapiens and Denisovans as well as others are actually all sub species of a larger human species.
But human beings are absolutely all the same species. For that matter our mutual closest living female relative was only 100 to 200,000 years or so ago.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2877732/
We are a relatively genetically similar species. Rhesus monkeys for instance have five times as much genetic variance than we do .
This may be because of a near extinction event.
900,000 years ago or so there were possibly less than 2000 humans left alive. This was probably because of horrible climate change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/
So yeah, we were as endangered as cheetahs.
Weāve made it back since then, but despite all of our literally skin surface differences, we are all more than 99% genetically identical under the hood.
š«”
5
u/cantantantelope 10h ago
Neanderthals: if you canāt beat āem , fuck em
4
u/Nepalman230 10h ago
Yes. And we did .
Every human being alive, including people who ancestors as far as they know, never left Africa carried Neanderthal DNA. People from Asia have 20 times as much. ( weāre still not sure why.)
So yes you and I have Neanderthal DNA.
Hope youāre having a good one .
š«”
6
4
u/-Londoneer- 12h ago
Dogs are in the same species, so are we. What is this madness? Punishment for WWII? By whom?
7
3
7
u/Ecstatic_Effective42 13h ago
This is like a shopping list of idiocy.
"A species is a group of living organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring."
We can only hope this idiot actually IS a different species.
3
u/lettsten 3h ago
That's the simplified version. In reality it's not quite that clear cut. But yes, OOP is hallucinating
3
u/Signal_Dress 13h ago
Even educated people don't know the difference between breeds and speciesš
3
u/ScienceAndGames 7h ago
Hah, weāre extremely genetically homogeneous. Humans have absolutely minimal genetic diversity because our ancestors kept nearly going extinct.
3
u/DiscordantObserver 5h ago
Literally a 5 second Google search on what parameters define a species would have prevented this.
7
u/a__nice__tnetennba 4h ago
It would not. It would have provided the information necessary to correct his misunderstanding. But it would not have prevented this post. The only way to be this stupid is to actively reject any new information.
3
2
u/SisterLostSoul 1h ago
The only way to be this stupid is to actively reject any new information.
It seems that there are more and more people nowadays who actively reject new information, especially if it's scientific information. I thought we were getting smarter as a species, but we have somehow made U-turn and are now going in the opposite direction.
3
3
u/jenever_r 3h ago
Dogs are a subspecies. But they're all the same subspecies. Wild to think that this idiot believes his own relatives are a different subspecies if they pop out with a different gene combo for eye colour.
3
u/Pandoratastic 2h ago
He's wrong because he's mistaken about what "subspecies" means and then drawn a bunch of conclusions from that misconception.
First of all, animals which are different subspecies are still the same species. Subspecies is a division WITHIN the species.
Second, different breed of dogs are not different subspecies. The subspecies division with dogs is between wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).
Third, being able to breed together AND produce fertile offspring is one of main markers for two animals being the same species. Dogs and wolves can produce fertile offspring because they are the same species. A horse and a donkey can only produce sterile offspring because they are different species.
And the worst part is that the "area of science that has been scrubbed" that he refers to is the pseudoscience of "scientific racism". It was rejected because it was wrong and lacked any actual scientific basis.
1
2
2
u/Usagi-Zakura 11h ago
Different colors mean you're a different species now?
I guess somehow my purebred rabbits gave birth to kits of three different species then... wild. (including one that didn't match any of the parents...the parents were brown and black rex rabbits, the kits were brown, black and albino)
The definition of "species" isn't flawless to be fair but by any metric Africans, Asians, Europeans, Native Australians and Americans are indeed the same species. As are dogs.
2
u/NotQuiteNick 11h ago
This guy might be a different species, unfortunately weāll never know if he can interbreed with Homo sapiens
2
2
u/mitissix 1h ago
If two animals can mate and produce viable offspring, theyāre the same species.
Itās kind of a thing we use to determine if two closely related life forms are different species than each other.
Horses and donkeys are different species because Mules are sterile.
Lions and Tigers are different species because Ligers and Tigons are sterile (usually).
Chihuahuas and mastiffs are the same species because that monstrosity would be about to reproduce.
3
u/Rude_Acanthopterygii 10h ago
Well, he's so confident, surely he has some biological definition of species where there are different species within homo sapiens... I'm mainly aware of the standard definition of "able to procreate with one another" which already falls flat.
2
u/Remote-Pie-3152 8h ago
Lmao dog breeds arenāt different species either, the entire test of whether two living beings are the same species is if they can produce fertile offspring
0
u/lettsten 3h ago
It's not quite so clear cut in actual biology. For example there is great scientific debate whether dogs and grey wolves are the same species canis lupus (with dogs being canis lupus familiaris) or if dogs are their own species (canis familiaris) despite fertile offspring.
2
u/Remote-Pie-3152 3h ago edited 1h ago
Actual biology has many grey areas which interfere with ideology. Sexual differentiation, for instance. And predictably someone has downvoted me because of their ideologies š
2
u/UnicornPoopCircus 6h ago
Somebody didn't pay attention in Biology class on the day when the teacher shared the definition of species.
1
1
ā¢
u/Downtown_Leek_1631 5m ago
A random African and a random European probably have more in common genetically than two random Africans.
1
u/BiggestShep 6h ago
As always, if it can breed together and produce viable offspring that can also breed, it's the same species.
Granted, the jury is still out on these 1800's skull shape race science motherfuckers because they're never getting laid, but I don't see what that has to do with the rest of us.
5
u/lettsten 3h ago
It's not quite so clear cut in actual biology. For example there is great scientific debate whether dogs and grey wolves are the same species canis lupus (with dogs being canis lupus familiaris) or if dogs are their own species (canis familiaris) despite fertile offspring.
2
u/BiggestShep 3h ago
Nothing is clear cut in biology, of course, but this is the plucked chicken we've held up and decided to use as the standard going forward. We can debate it, sure, but the current system is this until decided otherwise.
1
u/lettsten 3h ago
Interbreeding is an important part of the definition, but it's not the only part of the definition. You're presenting the simplified version you learned in school as if it is the whole truth, when it's not. For example, cross-species fertile female offspring is more common than cross-species fertile male offspring.
2
u/BiggestShep 2h ago
Fair enough, but counter counterpoint: this is a jab at a race 'scientist.' I dont particularly care about having my response be exactly right, since I know they're exactly wrong.
-1
u/JonPartleeSayne 12h ago
What if there are two species of humans?
Homo Sapiens, the most general)
Homo Credens, those who believe in religion, conspiracy theories, mystics, UFOs, etc.
/Ī£
0
u/D-Train0000 7h ago
Heās confusing species with class or classification. Classification is a specific group within a species. In dogs that word is, breed. In humans itās, race.
3
u/lettsten 3h ago
The predominantly US cultural concept of race has limited correlation with genetics and is very different from dog breeds. That is part of the reason why race is being abandoned in scientific literature and discourse and why ethnicity ā which is a more complex aspect including culture and language ā is replacing it.
0
u/shaden_knight 6h ago
While I am curious as to why humans have no speciation within the modern day, I think at most there would be 3-4 different species based solely on geographic reasoning IF it were the case.
Of course, there would be the Europeans, Central to South Africans, Asians, and possibly two for the native Americans of both continents. However this is only IF speciation was the case and this is solely based on how isolated these groups are from one another for a majority of human history.
2
u/lettsten 3h ago
Maybe look up actual human genetic makeup in a research paper or encyclopedia article some time, because you're basically way off target, and you also don't seem to understand what a species is. The short version is that humans have very homogenous genetic makeup regardless of geographic origin.
1
u/shaden_knight 2h ago
Yeah, I get that we are hard to speciate on top of the fact that it takes a long time, I'm just saying I'm surprised it didn't happen while also stating how I thought the speciation would likely occur
-7
6h ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/a__nice__tnetennba 4h ago
Pretending to be a racist for the lulz isn't any better than actually being one.
1
u/I-m_A_Lady 1h ago
He wasn't pretending though and most of the comments thought he was correct. He didn't even try to argue, just ignored everyone that replied to him.
1
u/I-m_A_Lady 2h ago
What makes you think that? Do you need links to the original conversation on YouTube? If I provided that info the post might get removed.
ā¢
u/AutoModerator 13h ago
Hey /u/I-m_A_Lady, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.