The Gettysburg Address

>>3089765
>millions
???

>>3089805
tens of thousands would be a more appropriate statement, the point still stands.

>>3089815
In evolutionary terms that basically nothing.

>>3089765
My problem with that statement is all the people born with trisomy 21 and other birth defects. They are obviously not born equal to normal human beings.

>>3089825
Well we all come from the same way so it's still being created equal

>>3089821
which is why they're still human obviously, but why pretend that there are NO, absolutely ZERO differences?

>>3089765
Because what it means is we all should have the same rights to make something of our selves. Everyone has an equal chance. It's only today's progressives who think we should all have equal outcomes, which is impossible

>>3089849
what it says is that we are all created equal

that since birth, we are totally equal with the same capacities and potential and that only circumstances can influence our outcome, and that is hilariously false

>>3089836
We are all 99.9% alike. It's the .1% that makes us look different.

>>3089860
Humans have as much biodiversity as other species which are recognized as having subspecies

>>3089894
Such as???

>>3089905
IIRC, human biodiversity has a rate of 0.7, which is the same as other species which are considered to be Polytipic, such as wolves and plenty of birds

>>3089765
I think he meant created equal in spirit, in the sense that men have being sentient in common

>>3089765
created equal in rights, not created equal in ability, dummy.

>>3089947
>they are equal because i have decided to treat them equally, not because they are "created equal"

>>3089955
It's just the Christian way to justify "treating them equally". Read a book or something.

>>3089967
so it's dumb as fuck is what you're saying?

>>3089765
What is it like lacking this much reading comprehension? How do you function in your daily life?

>>3089992
not an argument

>>3089937
That's because those species have a common ancestor. That's why we could breed with Neaderthals because we split off at the same time. Genetic variation =/= different species

>>3090015
>A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species.
How does an Australian Aboriginal versus as European not qualify?

>>3089996
ebin
Anyway, the fact that you ascribe the quote "all men are created equal' to the Gettysburg Address and not to the Declaration of Independence tells me that you are a race-baiting ignorant idiot.

>>3090026
eh, and the Gettysburg Address references the DoI, so it's a non-issue

but you seem to be attacking the conclusion and not the line of reason, which leads me to believe you are the more partisan party here.

>>3090019
Because there is barely any genetic variation between these people. They both develop the same as humans. Again, genetic variation =/= different species

>>3090039
Thank you for being upfront about your racism. The conclusion, that both our founding fathers and Lincoln stated repeatedly, is that all men are created equal, equal in rights before the law, all equal in their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

>>3090044
That's why it's a subspecies, not a different species you goof

>>3090059
No its not. Dogs can look drastically different but they are still the same species.

>>3090059
Our last subspecies was Homo sapiens idaltu which were anatomically modern humans but not psychologically the same, thats why they are a subspecies

>>3090071
Yes, which is a subspecies can exist within a species, do you know what the definition of a subspecies is?

>>3090057
Fair enough

>>3090083
There are contemporary humans which fit the definition of a subspecies though

File: thomas-jefferson-on-gun-ownership.jpg (53KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x600px

>>3089765
For starters, that's the Declaration of Independance, being quoted in Gettysburg. That's Thomas Jefferson's line, not Lincoln's.

And he meant equal at birth and in death and of equal value in the eyes of God, thus they should be given equal opportunity to be the best they can be. This is Jefferson we're talking about, so he probably wasn't thinking much about niggers - unlike you, by trying to tie this core American percept to Lincoln.

Egalitarianism entails equal treatment under the law, not enforced equality. It might entail boosting the young underprivileged to some degree, depending on how you interpret it, but in the end, everyone is free to fly or fall under their own merits.

>>3090103
>There are contemporary humans which fit the definition of a subspecies though
such as?

>>3090103
>https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14414/do-humans-have-enough-biological-differences-to-be-grouped-into-races-or-subspec
also its been proven races are not subspecies

>>3090157
That's not the same though, that statement declares that all are equal at creation, and I think it not logical to arbitrarily declare that God made all men equal, at least not in the case of the millions of years of divergent evolution following our creation. Equal under the law is something man declares, this is not the case at creation.

>>3090177
Australian Aboriginals and Europeans are the most obvious case

>>3090220
How are groups of the same species, isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years, physical different and not typically sexually attractive to one another, with a genetic variation on par with other polytpic species, not different subspecies when two birds on different sides of the same mountain range can be?

>>3091545
>How are groups of the same species, isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years, physical different and not typically sexually attractive to one another, with a genetic variation on par with other polytpic species, not different subspecies when two birds on different sides of the same mountain range can be?
They need distinct genetic differences not "cuz the look different"

>>3092226
Wrong
>A subspecies is a taxonomic rank below species – the only recognized rank in the zoological code,[5] and one of three main ranks below species in the botanical code.[4] When geographically separate populations of a species exhibit recognizable phenotypic differences, biologists may identify these as separate subspecies; a subspecies is a recognized local variant of a species.[6] Botanists and mycologists have the choice of ranks lower than subspecies, such as variety (varietas) or form (forma), to recognize smaller differences between populations.[4]