Sub-Saharan Africans derive up to 19% of their ancestry from an unknown, extinct hominid species not found in Eurasian populations

submitted by TheJamesRocket from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I don't see it as an incontrovertible argument at all.

Just because two groups of organisms can produce fertile offspring does not necessarily mean they are the same Species. There are examples of organisms belonging to the same Genus being able to produce fertile offspring. It all depends on whether they happen to have the same number of chromosomes.

Donkeys and horses can interbreed, but their offspring are not fertile, because donkeys have 62 chromosomes while horses have 64 chromosomes.

However, lions and tigers can interbreed, and their offspring are fertile, because lions and tigers both have 38 chromosomes.

So forgive me, but I do not find your argument to be ironclad.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At one point in time blacks might have been a totally different species. The issue is that Europeans (or proto europeans) dipped down into africa and made some hybrids. Ancient people moved around more than we think they did. The euro-african hybrids most likely outcompeted the other mystery DNA groups and now africa is full of a sub species not a different species. If one of /our biologists/ can prove otherwise I'm all ears but that seems the most likely scenario to me.

We shouldn't take 'breed' differences lightly either. It's not like humans are all Labradors with different coats. Irish setters, and German Pointers should be preserved. If you force a Greyhound to breed with a Great Dane or a Rottweiler you lose the unique traits of all three.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, being able to produce fertile offspring in of itself does not always mean they are the same species. That was not my only argument. I'm also curious how you deal with the fact a mulatto is genetically closer to whites than East Asians are to whites. Are East Asians less than half Homo sapien?

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/8527/genetic_distance_between_races/

[–]TheJamesRocket[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Why bring mixed race individuals into the discussion? If your going to talk about mulattos, then you should talk about hapas as well. In all likelihood, a hapa would be genetically closer to whites than a mulatto.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You dodged the question. Are East Asians less than half Homo sapien?

If blacks aren't the same species in your opinion, and a mulatto is half black, yet is genetically closer to whites than the East Asians are, then it stands to reason an East Asian would also be less human than a mulatto according to your logic.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    East Asians don't have any unknown hominid in their ancestry, and in actuality they cluster pretty close to whites.

    Mulattoes are clustering even closer. Unless you can refute the source you're objectively wrong and will continue to be.