Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 31st, 2011 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Species Defined Diff in Non-Human Animals and Human Animals

[reader comment on unrelated article at gawker site]

That reminds me of something I've wondered about. There's this big push in science these days to label every "new" variation of a species as a separate species. Most of the time the differences amount to no more than the differences between people of European decent and those of an African decent (bone structure, numerous external features). So it would seem that if you removed the negative social implications of such a classification that scientists might be tempted to list Whites, Asians, and Blacks as different species. So which is wrong here? Our excessive declarations of "oh look, a new species", or our "tread lightly" classification of human race? I personally wouldn't be that surprised or bothered if by modern scientific standards there was sufficient differences to split us up. I do think however that it'd add fuel to the fire of a lot of social issues.

http://io9.com/5835391/our-brains-do...-to-be-animals

Last edited by Alex Linder; August 31st, 2011 at 09:38 AM.
 
Old August 31st, 2011 #2
Carl Corey
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 240
Default

There is between 1 and 5% Neanderthal admixture in Europeans and Asians, where as Africans have none. So it makes sense to classify Eurasians and Africans as different species as the Neanderthal genes go back about 400.000 years.

The mainstream science makes it appear though as if all human races are equally distant from each other.
 
Old August 31st, 2011 #3
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Science is supposed to be about facts or truths, social implications shouldn't have any impact on definitions or reality.

If we said a drilling rig is a new kind of fish, would it be true?
 
Old August 31st, 2011 #4
Fenria
Self imposed ban
 
Fenria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The redwood forest
Posts: 787
Default

Unfortunately, we can produce non sterile offspring with each other, so the classic delineation between separate species is not able to be reached.

But, if you look at new discoveries like the fact that Europeans have at least 4% Neanderthal DNA, and Asians have some small percent as well, while African blacks have zero, it's not difficult to at least classify us all as sub species. Since blacks have no Neanderthal DNA, it can be assumed that Neanderthals were a Eurasian born hominid group, or at least significantly enough removed from Africa to be from a time before black hominids. And Neanderthal is just our closest genetic ancestor. Think of how many other defunct hominid lineages make up the different races that we can't measure with traditional DNA tests. The races might be made up with so many conglomerate hominid parts that it would be beyond calculation seeing as hominids have walked the earth for millions of years now.

Anyhow, yeah, if we could somehow have real, concrete proof that we truly were all different species, it would ignite a spark that would be very difficult for all the various agenda setters to extinguish. Maybe as DNA science progresses...... but, again, if there actually was such proof, we'll never be allowed to know about it.
__________________
Hell really is other people.
 
Old August 31st, 2011 #5
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
[reader comment on unrelated article at
That reminds me of something I've wondered about. There's this big push in science these days to label every "new" variation of a species as a separate species. Most of the time the differences amount to no more than the differences between people of European decent and those of an African decent (bone structure, numerous external features). So it would seem that if you removed the negative social implications of such a classification that scientists might be tempted to list Whites, Asians, and Blacks as different species. So which is wrong here? Our excessive declarations of "oh look, a new species", or our "tread lightly" classification of human race? I personally wouldn't be that surprised or bothered if by modern scientific standards there was sufficient differences to split us up. I do think however that it'd add fuel to the fire of a lot of social issues.

http://io9.com/5835391/our-brains-do...-to-be-animals
Asians generally, by my understanding, don't have a problem with applying the sensible reasoning to humanoids.

It's more moldy christard leftovers: one set of rules for the animal world, another for the 'human' world, the latter being 'special,' separate and distinct from the former.
 
Old August 31st, 2011 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
Asians generally, by my understanding, don't have a problem with applying the sensible reasoning to humanoids.

It's more moldy christard leftovers: one set of rules for the animal world, another for the 'human' world, the latter being 'special,' separate and distinct from the former.
We haven't even scratched the surface of how many christian claims and beliefs dovetail with liberalism. Universalism is the poison that keeps on poisoning.
 
Old August 31st, 2011 #7
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Universalism is the poison that keeps on poisoning.
Well shit, Alex, how can they level the mountain graph of human-subhuman quality of life without taking the top (whites) off the mountain?

I mean someone has to suffer for the animals crappy accomplishments (which are zero), it just happens to be us.

I mean really, don't you think our accomplishments, in comparison, have been unequal and unfair to those who are incapable of such lofty vision?

Think of the children.............................
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #8
Sergiu Sergante
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: JewS.A.
Posts: 544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenria View Post
Unfortunately, we can produce non sterile offspring with each other, so the classic delineation between separate species is not able to be reached.

But, if you look at new discoveries like the fact that Europeans have at least 4% Neanderthal DNA, and Asians have some small percent as well, while African blacks have zero, it's not difficult to at least classify us all as sub species. Since blacks have no Neanderthal DNA, it can be assumed that Neanderthals were a Eurasian born hominid group, or at least significantly enough removed from Africa to be from a time before black hominids. And Neanderthal is just our closest genetic ancestor. Think of how many other defunct hominid lineages make up the different races that we can't measure with traditional DNA tests. The races might be made up with so many conglomerate hominid parts that it would be beyond calculation seeing as hominids have walked the earth for millions of years now.

Anyhow, yeah, if we could somehow have real, concrete proof that we truly were all different species, it would ignite a spark that would be very difficult for all the various agenda setters to extinguish. Maybe as DNA science progresses...... but, again, if there actually was such proof, we'll never be allowed to know about it.

But weren't Neanderthals classified as a different species, yet able to produce non-sterile offspring with our early human ancestors, hence the 4% Neanderthal DNA found in Europeans, and the lesser percent in Asians? [There is NONE in niggers btw]

So that right there should automatically do away with the notion that ability to produce fertile offspring equals same species.

The only reason they can get away with labeling Neanderthals as a separate species is because they are extinct, were they alive today like niggers are, then they too would be just as human as us, the scientific differences would automatically cease.
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

we can produce non sterile offspring with each other

This seems to be the current definition of species, but is there a valid scientific reason, or is it a political reason expressed in scientific form?
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #10
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenria View Post
Unfortunately, we can produce non sterile offspring with each other, so the classic delineation between separate species is not able to be reached.

But, if you look at new discoveries like the fact that Europeans have at least 4% Neanderthal DNA, and Asians have some small percent as well, while African blacks have zero, it's not difficult to at least classify us all as sub species. Since blacks have no Neanderthal DNA, it can be assumed that Neanderthals were a Eurasian born hominid group, or at least significantly enough removed from Africa to be from a time before black hominids. And Neanderthal is just our closest genetic ancestor. Think of how many other defunct hominid lineages make up the different races that we can't measure with traditional DNA tests. The races might be made up with so many conglomerate hominid parts that it would be beyond calculation seeing as hominids have walked the earth for millions of years now.

Anyhow, yeah, if we could somehow have real, concrete proof that we truly were all different species, it would ignite a spark that would be very difficult for all the various agenda setters to extinguish. Maybe as DNA science progresses...... but, again, if there actually was such proof, we'll never be allowed to know about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergiu Sergante View Post
But weren't Neanderthals classified as a different species, yet able to produce non-sterile offspring with our early human ancestors, hence the 4% Neanderthal DNA found in Europeans, and the lesser percent in Asians? [There is NONE in niggers btw]

So that right there should automatically do away with the notion that ability to produce fertile offspring equals same species.

The only reason they can get away with labeling Neanderthals as a separate species is because they are extinct, were they alive today like niggers are, then they too would be just as human as us, the scientific differences would automatically cease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
we can produce non sterile offspring with each other

This seems to be the current definition of species, but is there a valid scientific reason, or is it a political reason expressed in scientific form?
The answer is on the chapter 28, but you should read the whole SECTION V (or the whole book).

http://erectuswalksamongst.us/
__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #11
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default from the book

Many people believe that if two animals cannot interbreed they are different species and, conversely, if they can interbreed they are the same species. If two animals cannot interbreed they are always classified as different species. 3 But if two animals can interbreed, they may or may not be classified as different species. There are many examples where taxonomists have classified two animals as different species even though they can and do interbreed. Even most dictionaries will not define “species” as populations that are incapable of interbreeding. Indeed, one dictionary 4 specifically states, “… related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding … “ Many “species” can interbreed, but typically do not. For example, many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), can interbreed. The wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris), the coyote (Canis latrans), and the common jackal (Canis aureus) have different species names (lupus, latrans, and aureus), yet they can all interbreed and produce fertile progeny. Even the two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed (Angier, 1995), despite having different chromosome numbers, 5 and so can the two species of chimpanzee, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). 6 So the fact that all human races can interbreed to produce fertile progeny does not mean that they should be classified as a single species. 7
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #12
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
Many people believe that if two animals cannot interbreed they are different species and, conversely, if they can interbreed they are the same species. If two animals cannot interbreed they are always classified as different species. 3 But if two animals can interbreed, they may or may not be classified as different species. There are many examples where taxonomists have classified two animals as different species even though they can and do interbreed. Even most dictionaries will not define “species” as populations that are incapable of interbreeding. Indeed, one dictionary 4 specifically states, “… related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding … “ Many “species” can interbreed, but typically do not. For example, many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), can interbreed. The wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris), the coyote (Canis latrans), and the common jackal (Canis aureus) have different species names (lupus, latrans, and aureus), yet they can all interbreed and produce fertile progeny. Even the two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can interbreed (Angier, 1995), despite having different chromosome numbers, 5 and so can the two species of chimpanzee, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). 6 So the fact that all human races can interbreed to produce fertile progeny does not mean that they should be classified as a single species. 7
A human can knock-up a sheep. Does that mean sheep are human or rather that humans are sheep?
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #13
Sergiu Sergante
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: JewS.A.
Posts: 544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
A human can knock-up a sheep. Does that mean sheep are human or rather that humans are sheep?
I don't think that's possible Fred, and even if it were, I doubt the resulting monstrosity would be fertile.
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #14
Roy
Perception Manager
 
Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,794
Default

Lions and tigers produce fertile offspring, yet are considered two different species, why not then negroes and Whites?


And if there were a Ministry of Racial Hygiene, I'd propose a study to find out if mulattoes are disproportionately infertile. It's pretty clear that most of them are fertile, but perhaps infertility is more common with them. If found out to be true, that would strengthen the case of Whites/negroes being different species.
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #15
Sergiu Sergante
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: JewS.A.
Posts: 544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy View Post
Lions and tigers produce fertile offspring, yet are considered two different species, why not then negroes and Whites?


And if there were a Ministry of Racial Hygiene, I'd propose a study to find out if mulattoes are disproportionately infertile. It's pretty clear that most of them are fertile, but perhaps infertility is more common with them. If found out to be true, that would strengthen the case of Whites/negroes being different species.
Actually, I believe that male ligers are sterile, and sometimes female ligers are fertile. Better examples have already been provided in the case of wolves and dogs for example. See Rick Ronsavelle's post above.
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #16
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergiu Sergante View Post
I don't think that's possible Fred, and even if it were, I doubt the resulting monstrosity would be fertile.
It is possible, and has happened, but you're right about the fertility.

 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #17
Sergiu Sergante
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: JewS.A.
Posts: 544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
It is possible, and has happened, but you're right about the fertility.







Though the article claims "the rare mutation most likely occurred as a result of improper nutrition since the fodder for the lamb’s mother was abundant with vitamin A."

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mys..._human_face-0/

There's also this mentioned in the same article:

In Zimbabwe, a goat gave birth to a similar youngster in September 2009. The mutant baby born with a human-like head stayed alive for several hours until the frightened village residents killed him.

The governor of the province where the ugly goat was born said that the little goat was the fruit of unnatural relationship between the female goat and a man.

"This incident is very shocking. It is my first time to see such an evil thing. It is really embarrassing," he reportedly said. "The head belongs to a man while the body is that of a goat. This is evident that an adult human being was responsible. Evil powers caused this person to lose self control. We often hear cases of human beings who commit bestiality but this is the first time for such an act to produce a product with human features," he added.

The mutant creature was hairless. Local residents said that even dogs were afraid to approach the bizarre animal.

The locals burnt the body of the little goat, and biologists had no chance to study the rare mutation.
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #18
Peer Fischer
Senior Member
 
Peer Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,921
Default

Tiger-human hybrids > sheep-human hybrids. Fact.

 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #19
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Hollyweird doesn't count.
 
Old September 22nd, 2011 #20
Sergiu Sergante
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: JewS.A.
Posts: 544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peer Fischer View Post
Tiger-human hybrids > sheep-human hybrids. Fact.

You're right though. The article said the "human-faced" sheep was caused by a mutation, NOT by human male sperm.

The supposed "human-faced" goat in Zimbabwe story had no pictures, no evidence, just nigger superstition of what could have been just another mutation.

As it stands, there is NO proof that a human can impregnate a sheep, or a goat, and I doubt it's even possible. At least not by a human having sex with a sheep. However laboratory monstrosities have been created:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._chimeras.html
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 AM.
Page generated in 0.37465 seconds.