Darwin's finches ended up as separate species. As it happens we were never separated geographically at all.
Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species. There is no reason to think humans would be any different.
I had a good smeck when that supremacist learned he was …
Darwin's finches ended up as separate species. As it happens we were never separated geographically at all.
Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species. There is no reason to think humans would be any different.
I had a good smeck when that supremacist learned he was 17% black.
Your last graph got to the point I have been trying to make. The fakes are taking resources that the authentically transgendered need. I saw one video about some idiot girl who had storned out of work in tears because her coworker refused to "they" her. I wanted to slap her face SO bad.
"Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species"
😁 I know that. I'm just saying that evolution is far more complex than you're portraying it. Yes, some species diverge to the point where they can't interbreed. Others, lions and tigers for example, are still able to breed despite significant time evolving separately.
Yes, it's *possible* that some groups of humans might, after an enormous amount of time and under some currently unknown evolutionary pressure, have become mutually infertile. This is just as likely to have happened within groups of humans we erroneously think of today as the same "race." But I see no justification at all for the certainty with which you made the claim.
Well the fact that we were able to cross vast distances in boats assured that it didn't happen.
I am a firm believer that humans are just as much an animal species as any other. and not exempt from any biological factors. And if groups of humans had been separated for 25, 50,000 years then there would have been enough diversification to result in mutually infertile species.
Don't forget that humans are known to have had at least seven distinct species. Species are not defined by mutual infertillity, there are even mutually fertile genera, maybe even families. We know that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were compatible; I have a distinctly Neanderthal look myself.
I hope you don't think I'm trying to make some racist point here, I absolutely am not, but I take offense at the notion that humanity is "above" biology. that animals have, for example, instincts but that we don't. Like Dave I find the diversity of humanity to be enriching.
"I hope you don't think I'm trying to make some racist point here, I absolutely am not, but I take offense at the notion that humanity is "above" biology. that animals have"
I know you more than well enough to know you're not a racist. I just think you're making assumptions without grounds.
I share your conviction that humans are an animal species like any other. But while I'll take your word for it that there were at least seven human species, all modern humans, regardless of their skin colour or geographical ancestry, are the same species.
Would we become mutually infertile if enough time passed? The only honest answer is "who knows?" But again, for that to happen, we'd almost certainly need to experience some currently unknown evolutionary pressure. Or wait millions and millions of years, in which case the point is kind of moot, since nobody knows what could happen over the course of millions of years.
Humans aren't finches. So it's not a simple matter of assuming that what's true for one species is true for another.
Some of these varieties are known from a small number of fossils and so mutual fertility is guesswork. But, yes, there have been at least seven species of humans.
Know why ours ended up at the top?
Because we could imagine. We could invent stories. We could do fiction.
Darwin's finches ended up as separate species. As it happens we were never separated geographically at all.
Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species. There is no reason to think humans would be any different.
I had a good smeck when that supremacist learned he was 17% black.
Your last graph got to the point I have been trying to make. The fakes are taking resources that the authentically transgendered need. I saw one video about some idiot girl who had storned out of work in tears because her coworker refused to "they" her. I wanted to slap her face SO bad.
"Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species"
😁 I know that. I'm just saying that evolution is far more complex than you're portraying it. Yes, some species diverge to the point where they can't interbreed. Others, lions and tigers for example, are still able to breed despite significant time evolving separately.
Yes, it's *possible* that some groups of humans might, after an enormous amount of time and under some currently unknown evolutionary pressure, have become mutually infertile. This is just as likely to have happened within groups of humans we erroneously think of today as the same "race." But I see no justification at all for the certainty with which you made the claim.
Well the fact that we were able to cross vast distances in boats assured that it didn't happen.
I am a firm believer that humans are just as much an animal species as any other. and not exempt from any biological factors. And if groups of humans had been separated for 25, 50,000 years then there would have been enough diversification to result in mutually infertile species.
Don't forget that humans are known to have had at least seven distinct species. Species are not defined by mutual infertillity, there are even mutually fertile genera, maybe even families. We know that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were compatible; I have a distinctly Neanderthal look myself.
I hope you don't think I'm trying to make some racist point here, I absolutely am not, but I take offense at the notion that humanity is "above" biology. that animals have, for example, instincts but that we don't. Like Dave I find the diversity of humanity to be enriching.
"I hope you don't think I'm trying to make some racist point here, I absolutely am not, but I take offense at the notion that humanity is "above" biology. that animals have"
I know you more than well enough to know you're not a racist. I just think you're making assumptions without grounds.
I share your conviction that humans are an animal species like any other. But while I'll take your word for it that there were at least seven human species, all modern humans, regardless of their skin colour or geographical ancestry, are the same species.
Would we become mutually infertile if enough time passed? The only honest answer is "who knows?" But again, for that to happen, we'd almost certainly need to experience some currently unknown evolutionary pressure. Or wait millions and millions of years, in which case the point is kind of moot, since nobody knows what could happen over the course of millions of years.
Humans aren't finches. So it's not a simple matter of assuming that what's true for one species is true for another.
Some of these varieties are known from a small number of fossils and so mutual fertility is guesswork. But, yes, there have been at least seven species of humans.
Know why ours ended up at the top?
Because we could imagine. We could invent stories. We could do fiction.
We could lie.