Are there, currently living, from a genetic point of view, different

>>8304487
>that picture
my sides

So... you are telling me that 13 billion years ago all the matter and energy in the universe was compressed in a single point and then exploded and the universe inflated and 500 billion years later giant spheres of hydrogen that neither exploded because of gravity nor condensed into a single point because of magnetism popped up all over the place and from those giants spheres of fire were ejected more complex pieces of matter that formed yet more spheres that happened to orbit around the giant sphere of fire not escaping the orbit because of gravity but neither being consumed by the ball of fire because of their tangential velocity, and in at one of those spheres cooled down enough that it became solid while spinning on its own axis and then somehow those molecules mixed with each other forming ever-increasingly complex structures that self-replicated until there was such a thing as a generic code with instructions to create even more complex structures and those structures shared the same resources and thus were changed over time due to different environmental pressures, and the code changed between generations because it was recombined or mutated randomly for a myriad of reasons, and coincidentally since the core of the sphere was made of iron it generated a magnetic field that covered the planet from cosmic rays, and those structures changed gradually over billions of years and one of those resultant structures were human beings who then just happened to discover that the building blocks of the universe could be controlled in such ways that allowed for communication at high speeds and that's how i am sending this message?

cool story bro

>>8304495
stuff that never happened.txt

hahahahahahahahahhaha nope
that's pseudo scientific bullshit

>>8304495
>all the matter and energy in the universe was compressed in a single point
nope, it all started from a tiny fluctuation

https://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s

>>8304487
If the definition of two organisms belonging to the same species is their ability to interbreed, then I am a divergent human subspecies because I cannot get laid

>>8304487
what is Wikipedia?

>>8304487
From a genetic point there is no where near enough difference between individuals to classify subspecies let alone different species.

>>8304880
>If the definition of two organisms belonging to the same species is their ability to interbreed

Appreciate the joke, but that's not the definition

>get vasectomy
>turn into different species

>>8304487
>Are there, currently living, from a genetic point of view, different human species or subspecies?

Of course:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNxv0V7RJA

File: image.png (475KB, 573x330px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 573x330px

>he doesn't know about Australian Aboriginals

>>8305467
Basically Uruk-hai

File: 1446719390966.jpg (27KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x375px

we never got an explanation for this thing
what is it /sci/?

>>8306182
basilisk

>>8304894
Maybe, but you'd be a fool to deny there are several metrics that seem to suggest there are subgroups that score similarly on those metrics, and other metrics.

An easy example would be Asians sharing similar facial characteristics, complexion, lactose intolerance, height and IQ when viewed as a group.

Obviously these aren't subspecies, but how would one categorize such a subgroup?

>>8306182
>>8304487
delicious headcrab

>>8306323
Humans are absurdly interbred. We have incredibly homogenous DNA for a species. Pretty much any other animal has a higher degree of divergence in genetics. There are differences, but they don't mean much. Not enough to justify subgroups or subspecies.