Recognition as a subspecies

[Útrám]

This appeared in my podcast. It makes one wonder whether or not human populations meet the criteria that constitute a subspecies.

Would an intellectually-honest debate even be possible at this point? Have we progressed to the point where objectivity is frowned upon?
The PC element within academia strives to obfuscate these sorts of debates; Moreover, contributions from the opposing sides can have spotty track-records as well.

IMHO Present-day humans belong to a much broader category. The evidence is overwhelming and deliberate attempts are being made to keep it away from the public.

[gold_fenix]

Genetically is demonstrated, that 2 human of diferent "race" have more differences that for example 2 dogs of different race

[Englisc]

Excellent thread.

[Superbia]

The terms in the second photo are incorrect, which can make it confusing. Maybe some biologue could confirm this, but if I'm correct, "african lion" is not the name of any species. The species "Panthera leo" is just "lion". A species is subdivided in various sub-species.
The "asiatic lion" (P. L. persica) is indeed considered a sub-species from "lion", as it shows the clearest differences. There's still discussion about the groups of lions in Africa, but for sure they don't constitute only one subspecies, but many. So "african lion" is an incorrect term.
Applying to humans, the species name is "homo sapiens". There are no subspecies recognised. There are "races".
Btw, subspecies can always breed and have fertile offsrping.
That only to clarify. As for the question itself, well, the difference between "race" and "subspecies" is only gradual, so it's a virtual arbitrary decision. You are totally right however that in the case of homo sapiens, PC factors are determining the decision. But I'm not sure if there is a clear point where you can undoubtly say: this is only race, this is subspecies. I'm asking because I'm not sure, what do you people think?
Btw excellent thread.

[Peyrol]

BTW, the recognition of different subspecies don't necessarily mean an ''inferiority-superiority complex'', it's only a matter of fact that, after the split between who left Africa and who remained, Human Race evolved separately and differently in all the colonized lands.

[Útrám]

But I'm not sure if there is a clear point where you can undoubtly say: this is only race, this is subspecies. I'm asking because I'm not sure, what do you people think?

In the early days of biology the term "race" was commonplace in the context of taxonomy for both men and animals and it was synonymous with 'subspecies'. In today's world scientists of integrity have contended that 'race' is a non-scientific term, however their various substitutes will usually insinuate something that meets the definition of subspecies.

A subdivision of a species of organisms, usually based on geographic distribution.

[Superbia]

In the early days of biology the term "race" was commonplace in the context of taxonomy for both men and animals and it was synonymous with 'subspecies'. In today's world scientists of integrity have contended that 'race' is a non-scientific term, however their various substitutes will usually insinuate something that meets the definition of subspecies.

Problem remains: the point is that taxonomical divisions down the category of "species" are subtle and gradual: sub-species is just a "bigger difference" than race. If I understood correctly, your former post was claiming to call blacks and white different subspecies. But how do you stablish when a difference (due to geographical distribution, adaptations, breeding etc) is big enough to constitute a sub-species? Is a matter of grade, a somehow arbitrary decision.

[Útrám]

Problem remains: the point is that taxonomical divisions down the category of "species" are subtle and gradual: sub-species is just a "bigger difference" than race. If I understood correctly, your former post was claiming to call blacks and white different subspecies. But how do you stablish when a difference (due to geographical distribution, adaptations, breeding etc) is big enough to constitute a sub-species? Is a matter of grade, a somehow arbitrary decision.

For further reading

http://stormchan.org/study/src/1347441137840.pdf

The term race is a traditional synonym for subspecies, however it is frequently asserted that Homo sapiens is monotypic and that what are termed races are nothing more than biological illusions. In this manuscript a case is made for the hypothesis that H. sapiens is polytypic, and in this way is no different from other species exhibiting similar levels of genetic and morphological diversity. First it is demonstrated that the four major definitions of race/subspecies can be shown to be synonymous within the context of the framework of race as a correlation structure of traits. Next the issue of taxonomic classification is considered where it is demonstrated that H. sapiens possesses high levels morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies. Racial variation is then evaluated in light of the phylogenetic species concept, where it is suggested that the least inclusive monophyletic units exist be low the level of species within H. sapiens indicating the existence of a number of potential human phylogenetic species; and the biological species concept, where it is determined that racial variation is too small to represent differentiation at the level of biological species. Finally the implications of this are discussed in the context of anthropology where an accurate picture of the sequence and timing of events during the evolution of human taxa are required for a complete picture of human evolution, and medicine, where a greater appreciation of the role played by human taxonomic differences in disease susceptibility and treatment responsiveness will save lives in the future.

[Pallantides]

Australoids are just pigmented and specialised borrebies

[Accountant]

Applying to humans, the species name is "homo sapiens". There are no subspecies recognised.

This is debatable. There are many human species, Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Floresiensis and Denisova hominin. (And many others before them)

I hope scientists crack all these genomes wide open and we all get to see who we truly are. Current results indicate that modern Europeans are 99,7% similar to Neanderthal. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...bred-dna-gene/)