WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] 4 pts

There is so much wrong in that it's hard to know where to start. Dogs are a domesticated animals changed by man and not really a good analogy for comparing separate species and are clades of the wolf, a created "subspecies".

The bottom one is also problematic as the term race is another word for subspecies. Clearly the races (subspecies) of man are not really subspecies but in fact should be considered separate species. It also is extremely unlikely they all "branched off" a mere 40,000 years ago. I'd also like to point out that the subsaharan species of man never domesticated any animals, unlike the caucasian and asian species of man.

Before anyone goes on about the 1st grade definition of a species being a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring they should go look at the dozens of cases of two different species who have produced fertile offspring and I am talking about birds, mammals, and reptiles.

[–] 1 pt

Was going to point this out but you did it first.

IIRC sub-saharan africans and humans (Europeans/Asians) last common ancestor was at least 85kya. What isn't known is if that last common ancestor was European man recolonizing africa or vice versa.

Europeans and Asians also have Neanderthal and (Neanderthal, Red-deer-cave-people, Denisovan) dna respectively, whereas SS africans have "ghost" populations of some, as yet, not identified hominid- but probably homo erectus.