Are two these the same species?
>>73708882
barely
Yes, well, both are from two different parts of the earth, but they are both human.
Also not all humans look like the chick on the right, OP.
>>73708882
Hispanic chick on the right lookawesome.
>>73708882
No, one is human, the other is a Jew
tfw you look like a delicious choccy cake.
>>73710417
>implying we aren't all eurasian girls
>>73708882
Is that the girl from facial abuse?
>>73708882
Same species and subspecies, to be specific.
>>73708882
yes, both are 3DPD
why do you ask?
>>73708882
Same species, different sub-species.
>>73708882
Same species. Different sub-species, if such were applied objectively.
Am I the only person who has never seen a thin Aboriginal woman
>>73708882
Well no one is Swedish the other is white
>>73708882
The one on the left is Australian.
>>73711475
>>73711781
All humans are the same subspecies: homo sapiens sapiens. There was another subspecies, but they are now extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu
If you want to taxonomically classify humans further, that's fine, but such a new rank would be below subspecies.
>>73708882
guys there is an easy definition. Same species can give offspring. That is the scientific one. Do you want a ppolitical definition, make up your own!
>>73708882
I always feel sorry for those abo women. I'm no prince but they look like shit.
Imagine trying to fit into society, with their cognitive skills and nig nog tendencies, while always coming second to pretty white girls.
I still think they should be euthanized though.
>>73712664
I don't think responding to my point with "but people disagree" is altogether sound. Read it again.
Why, exactly, do you disagree with the idea of such variant population groups being different sub-species, beyond "I was told to?"
>>73713003
Because comparing homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens idaltu reveals morphological and genetic differences between those two groups greater than the differences between individuals within those respective groups, whereas within homo sapiens sapiens, the opposite is true.
Not saying that's necessarily the most common definition, but that's why I believe they are classified correctly.
>>73713340
>Let's play semantics
>We are all human, disregard the differences such as (Eye colour, hair colour, skull measurements, skull shape, nose shape, muscle density, IQ and culture is all out the window)
fuck off faggot
>>73713340
I honestly think you're too focused on idaltu.
If two tiger population groups live within a hundred miles of each other, aren't readily physically distinguishable from each other save perhaps to an expert at leisure and have a genetic distance of (for example) .1, and two human population groups live on opposite sides of the earth, are readily physically distinguishable to anyone and have a genetic distance of .1, why are the tigers different sub-species and the humans not?
>>73712792
Horses and donkeys are the exact same species, then
>>73713340
>Lewontin's fallacy
>>73714275
Mules are infertile though, full definition says fertile offspring is required.
>>73713915
I just said we need to classify them correctly, not ignore them.
>>73714190
It all depends on the overall dynamics of the species itself. Each classifcation has to be relative to its parent classification. I don't know how many species of tigers there are, or how many subspecies are in the given example, but you'd need to look at how the FST compares among the various groups, *and* within those groups.
>>73714441
>Edwardsfagging
Edwards's conclusions do not invalidate Lewtonin's data.
>>73708882
They're of the same GENUS, but separate species.
>>73715070
>Edwards's conclusions do not invalidate Lewtonin's data.
They definitely invalidate Lewontin's conclusions. By analysing enough loci you can easily tell apart individuals from the classic races as defined by geography i.e blacks, Euros(west asians at least), east asians and abbos. The degree of accuracy depends on how many loci you consider, which isn't a problem nowadays with modern computers.
>>73712792
>Same species can give offspring
Fallen angels had sex with women and created giants (some had 6 fingers/6 toes).
Not the same species, but still had offspring.
>>73708882
To people who think that is nitpicking when it comes to aboriginals, find me a single pic of a 100% aboriginal that doesn't look ugly
>>73708882
test
>>73712792
Are yo really that retarded?
One little example:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep%E2%80%93goat_hybrid
>>73708882
Yes of course they are. How could you question that?
But these birds are all clearly different.
>>73708882
by the biological species concept they.
By morphological, geographic, and ecological, no
>>73708882
Sauce on the human chick
Yeah they are the same species, in fact I'd say the abo has more original homo sapiens DNA than the qt on the right, the qt is the next step of the evolution of the human race and the abo is her progenitor
>>73712664
I wanted to type some big post on how retarded you are, but cmon, its pol in 2016!
You aer fucking cuck jew shill go on reddit.
>>73715560
well, they're all extremely poor, fat, sick and completely dependent on government housing, food etc. most of the pics that get posted around here are old women.
so i'd look to the melanesians who are very similar but live healthy, wild lives like their ancestors. pretty easy to find some decently attractive, lithe people among them.
>>73716290
fuck off retard go suck russian cock
>>73716744
>so i'd look to the melanesians who are very similar but live healthy, wild lives like their ancestors.
Here's a pic of them 'living like their ancestors'
Very attractive, eh?
>>73708882
>>73709308
Since when is /pol/ so forgiving?
In terms of un-biased science, the answer is no.
>>73716949
they looked diseased/malnourished to me. likely slaves.
>>73711849
I've never seen an abo in real life. I've seen a pic of a skinny adult one.
>>73717296
You can't even find a single picture of their face not looking ugly
Sorry lad, they just look like that
>>73708882
Well, in terms of us-biased science, the answer is unequivocally yes.
>>73717912
Un-biased*
>>73714747
Italy never said anything about fertility of offspring, best friend Polan.
>>73717786
I thought you were talking their distended bellies. Their faces look fine to me in this pic. They seem a little healthier. While neither are ideal to my western eye, I don't think they're any less attractive than African blacks.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/01/7f/9c/017f9cf4ee5a0f2edbaa645a938a388a.jpg
https://bushtvblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/cyss-photo-shoot.jpg
>>73718236
Those are all a lot worse than african blacks
their brows are way more square and eyesockets hollow, their mouth is pushing forward way more
There's no attractive aboriginal
>>73718730
Their brow ridges and hair texture appeal more to my European aesthetics than African ones. The only thing Africans have on them is a less bulbous nose in my
>opinion
>>73708882
I wonder what it feels like fucking the one on the left.
>>73719307
Primal
One was bred to be fucked, the other not to be fucked with, what's the prob?
