Why are modern day biologists so stupid?

DAS RACISS

>>8575364
>caucasian human
he looks like he's mixed up with some arab or european or something
>african human
and this one definitely got some whitewashing or he would look like a car tire

none of these species look like their original ethnic seed.

>>8575364
WE

>>8575378
SO LET IT BE TOLD: THIS RETARD HAS CRACKED THE CODE ON BIOLOGY

>>8575389
you are angry

File: evolution-man[1].jpg (86KB, 957x382px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 957x382px

>>8575364
This is for anyone who thinks evolution is supposed to be real

>>8575364
Because biology is a joke.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Villars
>It was biology, however, that captured his imagination. Villars applied mathematical methods to studying the functioning of biological systems, yielding insights that had been missed by biologists and medical researchers who had been studying them for years.

File: IMG_20170101_193247.jpg (298KB, 916x1478px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 916x1478px

wellcome to another episode

>>8575364
Are /pol/tards illiterate? The images in the meme show that the asiatic lion and african lion are the same species, Panthera leo. But the text argues as if they are different.

Here's a hint: If lions migrated and bred like humans, they wouldn't have subspecies.

>>8575415
>(citation needed)

>>8575364
Go back to worship numbers

>>8575364
In all seriousness, it's because there's clearly more to biology than a single meme. You are not educated about this.

>>8575364
Black and white people are two different races biologically, but not politically. This is an oversimplification.

>>8575364
The comparison is pretty retarded because humans are trained to recognize and differentiate between human features. All monkeys look the same to us for example, but we pay lots of attention to facial creatures.

The same applies here. These cats all rook de same!

>>8575364

It says "sub species"

that's probably just because the African lion is thought to be older (Asiatic lion evolved from African lion)

Anthropology tells us that humans probably started in Africa

therefore Caucasians would be the subspecies

You seem to think that "sub" as in "sub human" meaning "less than human" means "genetically inferior" when it doesn't

Really "race" is pretty much the same as "sub species" anyway except it doesn't make one race just plain "human" because for different people it is intuitive that whatever race they are most used to would just be "human"

What if I'm black and/or white at the same time?

>>8575364
They lose their position and funding if they imply that there might be differences between races.

>>8575602
You're black then.

Welcome to the master race.

>>8575620

>black
>master race

fucking lol

>>8575415
srsly, this is why we still have shit like cancer, because only brainlets choose biology and medicine, while the cream of the crop studies math and physics.

see also: the idiot who rediscovered and published numerical integration.

File: IMG_3062.jpg (29KB, 221x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 221x300px

>pic related

(((scientists))) would consider them the same species

OP is literally iliterate. In the image the two lions are the same species: one is P. leo sp. other is P. leo persica two varieties of the same single species, you didn't evem make your reserch OP really embarrassing this is something you're supposed to learn in middle school
http://www.ducksters.com/science/scientific_classification.php

>>8575690
The question is why aryans and niggers aren't different subspecies

Oh my god, the picture even says the second is a subspecies as if it meant it is a different species, that's incredibly dumb.
OP, "race" is another name for "subspecie" or variety. Humans have races. Humans can reproduce independently of race thus they are of the same species.

>>8575364

because they have to be, or they get starved to death, never get laid, and everyone hates them.

>>8575699
This kind of means that wealthy ppl and poor peoole are two different subspecies. Think about it. They never mix although they could, and they have sociocultural differences.

>>8575378

>original

what, the first cellular organism?

>>8575666
it's time to go solve cancer, mr. "cream of the crop"

>the idiot who rediscovered and published numerical integration.

>EdD
>scientist/doctor
retard

>>8575699

so, negros are a subspecies of human? that makes sense since technically we can still breed with them

>>8575696
"race" is a name for "variety" or "subspecies", but it is impossible to classify all the major variations in human subspecies, as skin color is only a detail when dealing with taxonomy. If you take a group of 10 different African ethnicities you would probably get 10 of what we call "phenotypes" characterizing 10 subspecies, and this would still have no meaning singe humans migrate and change phenotypes in a faster pace than any other species, that's why we only classify is general terms like "black" or "white", but these aren't really subspecies because there would be different subpecies even inside the "black" and "white" group.

/pol/ and memeing aside, why aren't we listed as separate subspecies'? Even, say, a race like Australian Aboriginals, they're pretty damn different from Caucasians. Do they have a real basis or is it just politics.

>>8575751
>Omg, /pol/ on damage control: >>>/pol/

Am i doin it rite guys? :^)

File: Back to pol.png (322KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 546x700px

>>8575751
basically because different groups haven't been reproductively isolated for long enough. there MIGHT be a rationale for splitting Native Australians and Maori into one taxon and all other extant humans into another, since they seem to have been isolated since ~50kya, but the divergence of East Asian/Native American, Caucasian/South Asian/Middle Eastern, and Sub-Saharan African lineages is relatively recent, and there's been intermarriage between those three groups since before recorded history.

the other reason is that there ARE other subspecies of Homo sapiens (beyond our own, H. s. sapiens) such as H. s. idaltu and arguably H. s. neanderthalensis (though recent mDNA studies tend to support putting it in its own species within Homo). If we wanted to further subclassify H. s. sapiens, we'd need to designate infraspecies or landraces or something, and there's really very little point in doing that given how blurry the boundaries are and given how it would really serve no purpose but to piss people off.

let's not let this thread get out of control. the /pol/esmoker who started it probably isn't interested in a serious debate and just wants to rant about how (((science))) doesn't agree with his
>muh opinuions

What's the definition of species and subspecie for a start? Without a clear definition this entire thread makes no sense.

>>8575806
The people that make these threads always use wikipedia, so you might as well assume that the definition of a scientific term is that of wikipedia for these discussions. Since OP most often doesn't do his own research, you might even find information on that same wikipedia page to turn it against his argument.

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-01-02 01:09:17 Post No.8575839
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-01-02 01:09:17 Post No.8575839 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/105281798