He's even wrong about dogs. Breeds of dogs aren't subspecies, as all domestic dogs are already the same subspecies (canis lupus familiaris). This person really doesn't know their science.
As soon as I read his 'theory' of fields of science being scrbbed and sanitised as punishment for WW2, I crossed Science off his list of things he understands.
He's also claiming ww2 was a war against Europe rather than a war against an alliance of countries that had conquered Europe, which is a common talking point among neo nazis.
And let's not forget the western allies all had their own 'scientific racism' beliefs that continued for decades after ww2.
Spain was actually officially "non-belligerent", but yes, it did have sympathy towards the Axis, but was inconsistent in its support.
The whole situation of Spain in WW2 is weird and complicated, so much that here it's kind of glossed over in history class, we go from the Civil War straight to the Francoist Regime and the post-war recovery, barely touching WW2 except for the obvious.
Yeah, that's what I was going for. Spain didn't participate because they had their own war/totalitarian regime to deal with more or less separate from the war and totalitarian regime(s) that the rest of Europe was involved in. "No, we can't go to that war. We have war at home."
Yep, and that sentiment has kind of transpired here, for us Spaniards WW2 is a bit of a side event to the Spanish Civil War.
We know that it is actually the major conflict, but the trauma that the Civil War left on Spanish society to this day mutes it a lot on our consciousness.
Spain had some soldiers who fought for the nazis, approximately 45 thousand fought on the eastern front. I have read that when things were going well for Germany, Franco wanted to join the war but Admiral Wilhelm Canaris talked him out of it. There were also Spanish soldiers who fought for the allieds with the free French after the invasion of Normandy.
So? My point is the idea that ww2 was a war to defend Europe from America and Russia is literally nazi propaganda (the nazis openly wanted to exterminate the Slavic half of Europe), and two of the most racist countries in Europe were in the western allies (and did not drop scientific racism as a 'punishment' following the war).
This is an important point. No country fought WWII to stop the holocaust or defend civil rights eiher. They, including the US, fought because they didn't like or want their countries invaded.
Also, humans have much less genetic diversity than dogs (or most other species).
There have been a few genetic bottlenecks in history that nearly wiped out the human species. As recently as 70,000 years ago the whole human population was probably only a few thousand strong. That’s barely an eye blink in evolutionary terms.
And a different _sub_species isn't even a different species. Otherwise you wouldn't create that distinction.
Meaning that not only are labradors and german shepherds the same species, so are corgis and wolves. At least technically, under the currently most accepted classification.
Though I am aware classifications regarding species can be a bit iffy and it's not an exact science on what is a separate species or not. The "can create viable offspring" thing works for high school biology, but there are too many exceptions and grey areas in real life.
The canis lupus familiaris vs. canis familiaris distinction is hotly debated and to my understanding the canis familiaris side is the most accepted view, despite the viable offspring thing (which you've already explained, perfect!). If you know anything I don't about lupus familiaris being more widely accepted then please share your sources, because that is definitely the coolest answer!
Is that debate a factual/evidentiary debate about dogs and wolves, or is it a debate about exactly how we should define species and subspecies? I’m guessing the latter. Because like you guys are pointing out, the “viable offspring” thing isn’t completely dispositive, which leaves laymen like me wondering how precise the criteria are, or even can be, given the complex smear of animal genetics. Like you could create a neat score for degree of genetic divergence (and I’m sure they have) or some other objectivish measure, but you still have to pick thresholds and agree to apply them consistently.
It seems like the problem is likely worse for different-subspecies vs just-the-same-subspecies, compared to different-species vs different-subspecies. Just reading the Wikipedia article for “subspecies”, the criteria sound awfully wishy-washy. Can anyone with deeper knowledge shed some light here? What is the state of play in terms of precise definitions?
(To be clear, there is no doubt that the poster in the Nazi screenshot is an idiot, I’m not remotely suggesting otherwise)
If anyone has any doubts for sub species to be formed they need to have a deep genetic divergence humans have never been isolated long enough for that to occur. Also dog breeds are not different subspecies an example of an actual subspecies is wolfs and dogs
Ps. All human dna is about 99.85 to 99.95 identical to each other
Biologist here, I was about to “Um actually” you and did a quick double-check and HUH never realised familiaris was more commonly considered a subspecies. Thanks for the fact!
Then there’s those of us who are even more aggressive than average because we refuse to be deprived of the beach, so now we’re angry about our angry red skin too LMAOOOO
Aside from homo sapiens there have been at least 20 different species of human that have existed on the planet, often with many species existing contemporaneously. Some taxonomists argue that species like homo neanderthalensis should be considered more as a subspecies of homo, but that is a minority view.
Yes, it's german, that's the joke. Wölfe is the correct plural. The verb "wolfen" means "to grind (meat)". This comes from "Fleischwolf" literally "Meat wolf" - means meat grinder.
Mine too (I hope username checks out). In place names such as Wolfenstein or Frankenberg or Joachimstal, which were often named long ago , the Noun is descriptive. "Stone (or Castle) of the wolve(s), Mountain of the Franks, Joachims Valley" - the last one being the origin of the word "Dollar".
Edit: why Wolfenstein, not Wolfstein, Wölfenstein or Stein des Wolfes? Most likely a grammatical change from a older german language such as Mittelhochdeutsch, Des Wolfes <- Des Wolfen
No- there are heavy differences between wolves, coyotes, and jackals. You can argue semantics between the species under those umbrellas, but not between those umbrellas.
First- jackals and coyotes do not live anywhere near each other for any overlap to have occurred at any time. However, they fill similar niches in their ecosystems. Their similarities come from convergent evolution moreso than anything else. Think red foxes and Grey foxes.
When compared to wolves, there are even starker differences. They look different, fill different niches, and behave differently. It's not just the learned behaviors, either. A coyote pup raised with wolves or dogs is going to have difficulties communicating with their adopted pack and vice versa. It's not impossible, and they do learn how to get along, but the differences are clear.
The main reason these animals can so freely interbreed is more closely related to chromosomal similarities than phenotype similarities.
Some animals to contrast this with is again red and grey foxes, or even goats and sheep. Very, very similar phenotypes, somewhat similar behavior to the unaware, but completely unable to breed viable offspring.
Honestly, surprised it got banned. Even the acknowledgement of established racism on reddit is a forbidden topic; explicitly acknowledging its existence is impossible to ban without openly protecting it.
Also his “for example” is pretty much the only definitive difference (hair, eye, and skin colour). Other than a few minor or rare characteristics and medical conditions, people of all races are remarkably similar underneath, and some people of different races are physically more similar to each other than some people of the same race.
Race never existed as an objective classification (nationality, place of birth, family, or affiliation were the normal ways of classifying people for most of history), we invented it, and really not that long ago.
On top of that "race" was originally just a botanical term relating to plants. Eg: cauliflower, broccoli, and romanesco all used to be referred to as races of brassica.
Then Darwin published his book, which had the full title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In this book the only discussion of race was, again, to do with plants. The "Favoured Races" in the title was mostly him saying why he thought romanesco was the perfect brassica.
Unfortunately however people with their own racist agenda started to refer to humans as having races off of the back of that book, and would misquote Darwin to justify their bigotries.
Not only is race not an objective classification, but it is being phased out of serious scientific discourse and at this point it is a predominantly American cultural thing. Furthermore, there is limited correlation between perceived "race" in the US and actual genetic ancestry. For example Bryc et al., 2015: "Our results provide empirical support that, over recent centuries, many individuals with partial African and Native American ancestry have "passed" into the white community, with multiple lines of evidence establishing African and Native American ancestry in self-reported European Americans."
The number of white supremacists I have met that are of Italian or Irish descent is ridiculous. When you point out that less than 100 years ago they wouldn't be considered white they get all purple and blustery. It's hilarious.
Aren't irish people usually the least racist because they also experienced oppression? Some white supremacists even call Irish people the "n-words" of the white race.
Also, the Native American community sent financial aid to the Irish during the potato famine, and the Irish remembered that kindness and returned the favor by sending financial aid during the recent pandemic. So the idea that an Irishman would be a white supremacist is so weird to me.
Indeed, but, just because as a group they tend to be more compassionate, doesn't mean they all are. As a teen I was almost roped into a chapter of the KKK. There were definitely Irish in the group. It's easy to get caught up in groups like that when you're in an isolated community. Thankfully, I was already an atheist at the time or they would have let me in and my life would be drastically worse for it. I have since gone out of my way to help point out racist dog whistles
This guy has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. They use 'subspecies' and 'species' interchangeably to refer to domesticated breed.
We have done genetic testing and it has shown that there is more genetic diversity between individuals from the African continent than between an African individual and an European individual. Human races are socially constructed not based on biology. Just think of this: a black person and a white person procreate. Yet their child is considered 'black' or 'mixed race' but not white, despite the child having just as much white genetics as black genetics. The idea is completely nonsensical. That is because race is not science. It is a socially constructed idea to racialize and therefore otherize minorities. This is why our ideas of what is and is not 'white' change over time. 'White' itself is not defined by anything that it is, but rather what it is not. And white supremacists will always infight about who does or does not count. It is a self-defeating ideology. If they were to make an ethnostate they'd need a new scapegoat and turn on each other. The definition of 'white' would get narrower and narrower over time.
Imagine this mixed race couple having two children, one turns out more white, the other darker (not unheard of at all). Genetic testing would clearly show they are siblings, but they look different because of phenotypes and gene expression. Yet some racist apartheid regime would deem one less than the other, based on skin color alone. It's not scientific at all.
Yep, completely true. Who does and does not pass as 'white' will have a great influence on how they may be treated. If you want to have a laugh look up 'Hessy Levinsons Taft'.
Fortunately a predominantly US thing. I can't remember ever hearing anyone here in Europe talk about "race" without either talking about nazis or Formula 1
(Warning: This comment contains hyperbole. To the readers who may have difficulty picking up hyperbole, please re-read the comment before attempting to correct me with saying that it's not 100 % accurate. Thank you.)
These views stem from a very old, very outdated, and VERY RACIST form of pseudoscience.
People who hold value in race supremacy will fall back on these claims because ‘technically’ at one point in time these theories were thought to be true. Regardless of the fact that they have not only been debunked, but genetically proven wrong.
And if this person isn’t a race supremacist, then they are being influenced by one. People don’t just stumble across these types of key points.
I can find sources that date back to like the 17th century in which these claims were “true” but it’s a dark rabbit hole filled with misinformation, eugenics, and bigotry.
Well unless you're mixing a human and a wolf it means nothing at all.
All the differences that we can see between humans from hair color, eye color, skin color, height, shape, smell, invisible markings to the najed eye all of it is held within that less than .1% of DNA.
He's wrong because he's mistaken about what "subspecies" means and then drawn a bunch of conclusions from that misconception.
First of all, animals which are different subspecies are still the same species. Subspecies is a division WITHIN the species.
Second, different breed of dogs are not different subspecies. The subspecies division with dogs is between wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).
Third, being able to breed together AND produce fertile offspring is one of main markers for two animals being the same species. Dogs and wolves can produce fertile offspring because they are the same species. A horse and a donkey can only produce sterile offspring because they are different species.
And the worst part is that the "area of science that has been scrubbed" that he refers to is the pseudoscience of "scientific racism". It was rejected because it was wrong and lacked any actual scientific basis.
Though I will give the aliens a little grace on dogs. If you saw a chihuahua next to a Great Pyrenees you would not immediately think “yeah these are the same thing”
Scientists have done gene sequencing on most or all of the dog breeds, and there are some real surprises on which breed is genetically closer to which, and which is closest to the wolf. (None of which I can recall off the top of my head, unfortunately).
Edit: Found one article on "which dog breeds are closest to wolves". Huskies are on the list, probably not too surprising. But so are Shih Tzus.
After ww2 the UN did a comprehensive study on starvation. I forget the exact time, about 2 months without food. all people from every race reported the same symptoms of starvation. Hallucinations of objects as food for example. The conclusion, we all starve the same. We are all human.
Different colors mean you're a different species now?
I guess somehow my purebred rabbits gave birth to kits of three different species then... wild. (including one that didn't match any of the parents...the parents were brown and black rex rabbits, the kits were brown, black and albino)
The definition of "species" isn't flawless to be fair but by any metric Africans, Asians, Europeans, Native Australians and Americans are indeed the same species. As are dogs.
Um no. Different dog breeds are still the same species despite looking vastly different because they can breed together and they have enough genetic similarities between them.
I will say the one aspect of truth is that sub species are capable of crossbreeding. for instance us and Neanderthals, us and the Denisovans and so on.
Science is gradually coming to the conclusion that Neanderthals, Homo sapiens and Denisovans as well as others are actually all sub species of a larger human species.
But human beings are absolutely all the same species. For that matter our mutual closest living female relative was only 100 to 200,000 years or so ago.
We’ve made it back since then, but despite all of our literally skin surface differences, we are all more than 99% genetically identical under the hood.
Every human being alive, including people who ancestors as far as they know, never left Africa carried Neanderthal DNA. People from Asia have 20 times as much. ( we’re still not sure why.)
It would not. It would have provided the information necessary to correct his misunderstanding. But it would not have prevented this post. The only way to be this stupid is to actively reject any new information.
The only way to be this stupid is to actively reject any new information.
It seems that there are more and more people nowadays who actively reject new information, especially if it's scientific information. I thought we were getting smarter as a species, but we have somehow made U-turn and are now going in the opposite direction.
Dogs are a subspecies. But they're all the same subspecies. Wild to think that this idiot believes his own relatives are a different subspecies if they pop out with a different gene combo for eye colour.
All dogs are the same species, the differences within a species are breeds. Humans technically have breeds too in the sense they're differently adapted to their respective environments and predisposed to certain different genetic conditions, but what's his point about that?
not necessarily- coyotes, wolves, and dogs are all able to produce fertile offspring with each other. they're the same family, but not the same species- at least coyotes aren't.
All breeds of dogs are members of the same subspecies. Also, all humans are so genetically similar, that if humans worked like dog breeds, we would all be considered exact same breed.
All dogs are C. Lupis Familiaris. They're all literally the same species and subspecies. Dog breeds are actually a decent comparison to race because despite how many physical characteristics are different, they're the same species with largely the same capabilities and mental capacities. It breaks down when comparing across size, and there are some breeds that are more prone to aggressive behavior, unlike in humans, but the idea works if we only look at appearance.
Well, he's so confident, surely he has some biological definition of species where there are different species within homo sapiens... I'm mainly aware of the standard definition of "able to procreate with one another" which already falls flat.
Lmao dog breeds aren’t different species either, the entire test of whether two living beings are the same species is if they can produce fertile offspring
It's not quite so clear cut in actual biology. For example there is great scientific debate whether dogs and grey wolves are the same species canis lupus (with dogs being canis lupus familiaris) or if dogs are their own species (canis familiaris) despite fertile offspring.
Actual biology has many grey areas which interfere with ideology. Sexual differentiation, for instance. And predictably someone has downvoted me because of their ideologies 😂
Perhaps they are confusing Species and specie, and believe that they are highlighting how quarters and dimes are different coins than Canadian Loonies?
I remember seeing that comment and it was such obvious BS that I’m shocked more people didn’t argue. Not even isolated human races are genetically distinct enough to be considered a different subspecies. They’re more like morphs, really. Domestic dogs also aren’t considered subspecies. They’re considered breeds of the same species.
As always, if it can breed together and produce viable offspring that can also breed, it's the same species.
Granted, the jury is still out on these 1800's skull shape race science motherfuckers because they're never getting laid, but I don't see what that has to do with the rest of us.
It's not quite so clear cut in actual biology. For example there is great scientific debate whether dogs and grey wolves are the same species canis lupus (with dogs being canis lupus familiaris) or if dogs are their own species (canis familiaris) despite fertile offspring.
Nothing is clear cut in biology, of course, but this is the plucked chicken we've held up and decided to use as the standard going forward. We can debate it, sure, but the current system is this until decided otherwise.
Interbreeding is an important part of the definition, but it's not the only part of the definition. You're presenting the simplified version you learned in school as if it is the whole truth, when it's not. For example, cross-species fertile female offspring is more common than cross-species fertile male offspring.
Fair enough, but counter counterpoint: this is a jab at a race 'scientist.' I dont particularly care about having my response be exactly right, since I know they're exactly wrong.
What if there are two species of humans?
Homo Sapiens, the most general)
Homo Credens, those who believe in religion, conspiracy theories, mystics, UFOs, etc.
He’s confusing species with class or classification.
Classification is a specific group within a species. In dogs that word is, breed. In humans it’s, race.
The predominantly US cultural concept of race has limited correlation with genetics and is very different from dog breeds. That is part of the reason why race is being abandoned in scientific literature and discourse and why ethnicity – which is a more complex aspect including culture and language – is replacing it.
yes, but they are different races of that species and their differences are bigger then we have between any homo sapiens sapiens. I'm trying to argue that the person that is in the screen shot is stupid
Hey /u/I-m_A_Lady, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
He's even wrong about dogs. Breeds of dogs aren't subspecies, as all domestic dogs are already the same subspecies (canis lupus familiaris). This person really doesn't know their science.
As soon as I read his 'theory' of fields of science being scrbbed and sanitised as punishment for WW2, I crossed Science off his list of things he understands.
He's also claiming ww2 was a war against Europe rather than a war against an alliance of countries that had conquered Europe, which is a common talking point among neo nazis.
And let's not forget the western allies all had their own 'scientific racism' beliefs that continued for decades after ww2.
Against an alliance including european countries.
The clear majority of European countries were fighting the disgusting nazis and the Italian Facists.
Some countries like Spain and Ireland and Switzerland were neutral.
Though saying Spain was neutral in WWII is burying the lede a bit.
Spain was actually officially "non-belligerent", but yes, it did have sympathy towards the Axis, but was inconsistent in its support. The whole situation of Spain in WW2 is weird and complicated, so much that here it's kind of glossed over in history class, we go from the Civil War straight to the Francoist Regime and the post-war recovery, barely touching WW2 except for the obvious.
Yeah, that's what I was going for. Spain didn't participate because they had their own war/totalitarian regime to deal with more or less separate from the war and totalitarian regime(s) that the rest of Europe was involved in. "No, we can't go to that war. We have war at home."
Yep, and that sentiment has kind of transpired here, for us Spaniards WW2 is a bit of a side event to the Spanish Civil War. We know that it is actually the major conflict, but the trauma that the Civil War left on Spanish society to this day mutes it a lot on our consciousness.
Spain had some soldiers who fought for the nazis, approximately 45 thousand fought on the eastern front. I have read that when things were going well for Germany, Franco wanted to join the war but Admiral Wilhelm Canaris talked him out of it. There were also Spanish soldiers who fought for the allieds with the free French after the invasion of Normandy.
I stand corrected.
So? My point is the idea that ww2 was a war to defend Europe from America and Russia is literally nazi propaganda (the nazis openly wanted to exterminate the Slavic half of Europe), and two of the most racist countries in Europe were in the western allies (and did not drop scientific racism as a 'punishment' following the war).
This is an important point. No country fought WWII to stop the holocaust or defend civil rights eiher. They, including the US, fought because they didn't like or want their countries invaded.
WW2 was largely a war of European nations against each other. So yeah, they sure have some wild takes there.
White Christian nationalists are growing online spaces lately and it's sickening.
Save your pen - just circle the things he does understand, rather than crossing off the things he doesn't understand...
History too
Also, humans have much less genetic diversity than dogs (or most other species).
There have been a few genetic bottlenecks in history that nearly wiped out the human species. As recently as 70,000 years ago the whole human population was probably only a few thousand strong. That’s barely an eye blink in evolutionary terms.
He knows what was referred to as, 'Science' by the standards of the 18th century. Wait till bro discovers Phrenology, going to be really exciting!
I mean, assuming he can read.
He’s just an old timey racist
And a different _sub_species isn't even a different species. Otherwise you wouldn't create that distinction.
Meaning that not only are labradors and german shepherds the same species, so are corgis and wolves. At least technically, under the currently most accepted classification.
Though I am aware classifications regarding species can be a bit iffy and it's not an exact science on what is a separate species or not. The "can create viable offspring" thing works for high school biology, but there are too many exceptions and grey areas in real life.
The canis lupus familiaris vs. canis familiaris distinction is hotly debated and to my understanding the canis familiaris side is the most accepted view, despite the viable offspring thing (which you've already explained, perfect!). If you know anything I don't about lupus familiaris being more widely accepted then please share your sources, because that is definitely the coolest answer!
Is that debate a factual/evidentiary debate about dogs and wolves, or is it a debate about exactly how we should define species and subspecies? I’m guessing the latter. Because like you guys are pointing out, the “viable offspring” thing isn’t completely dispositive, which leaves laymen like me wondering how precise the criteria are, or even can be, given the complex smear of animal genetics. Like you could create a neat score for degree of genetic divergence (and I’m sure they have) or some other objectivish measure, but you still have to pick thresholds and agree to apply them consistently.
It seems like the problem is likely worse for different-subspecies vs just-the-same-subspecies, compared to different-species vs different-subspecies. Just reading the Wikipedia article for “subspecies”, the criteria sound awfully wishy-washy. Can anyone with deeper knowledge shed some light here? What is the state of play in terms of precise definitions?
(To be clear, there is no doubt that the poster in the Nazi screenshot is an idiot, I’m not remotely suggesting otherwise)
I'm no biologist, I thought the subspecies taxonomy was more accepted.
But it gets the point across that the distinction on this level is more a case of opinion than hard science.
Exactly. He has no idea what he's talking about. Dogs are all one species with variation within the species.
Imagine arguing over different types of sodas, without recognizing them all as sodas.
So what you're saying is there are different breeds of humans.
Though likely not enough inbreeding and we are all continentally based mutts.
Like you say, there's never been the level of inbreeding in humans to make anything equivalent to "breeds".
Except maybe the hasburg breed.
Now I'm thinking "how would a Saint Barnard mate with a Dachshund"? Maybe they are (or are becoming) different species
If anyone has any doubts for sub species to be formed they need to have a deep genetic divergence humans have never been isolated long enough for that to occur. Also dog breeds are not different subspecies an example of an actual subspecies is wolfs and dogs
Ps. All human dna is about 99.85 to 99.95 identical to each other
Biologist here, I was about to “Um actually” you and did a quick double-check and HUH never realised familiaris was more commonly considered a subspecies. Thanks for the fact!
Brb returning my degree.
Gingers are the exception though, born without a soul and highly aggressive because they cant go to the beach
Careful, talk like that could buy you a knuckle sandwich…
(cloudy days only!)
Careful, only a ginger can call another ginger "ginger"
Yeah, the rest of us have to say "ginga".
Beat me to it! 🤣
Just like only a ninja can sneak apon another ninja.
Then there’s those of us who are even more aggressive than average because we refuse to be deprived of the beach, so now we’re angry about our angry red skin too LMAOOOO
Aside from homo sapiens there have been at least 20 different species of human that have existed on the planet, often with many species existing contemporaneously. Some taxonomists argue that species like homo neanderthalensis should be considered more as a subspecies of homo, but that is a minority view.
Wolves.
Why is it called "Wolfenstein" then? Checkmate grammar-GI (/s)
In Wolfenstein: TNO you come across two nazis talking, when one of them interrupts the other and corrects his grammar.
He's a grammar-nazi.
Because Wolfenstein is German, and in German you say wölfe or wolfen when referring to a name
Yes, it's german, that's the joke. Wölfe is the correct plural. The verb "wolfen" means "to grind (meat)". This comes from "Fleischwolf" literally "Meat wolf" - means meat grinder.
It's my native language and I didnt even know that- wow
Only thought it was for names that consist of two nouns.. Like Wolfenstein, Froschenberg, etc to have different wording
Mine too (I hope username checks out). In place names such as Wolfenstein or Frankenberg or Joachimstal, which were often named long ago , the Noun is descriptive. "Stone (or Castle) of the wolve(s), Mountain of the Franks, Joachims Valley" - the last one being the origin of the word "Dollar".
Edit: why Wolfenstein, not Wolfstein, Wölfenstein or Stein des Wolfes? Most likely a grammatical change from a older german language such as Mittelhochdeutsch, Des Wolfes <- Des Wolfen
Yea cuz of Taler.. Cool to know tho!!
Because it is just the one stein.
For context, we also share 60% with bananas, 98% with pigs and 98.8% with some apes.
That being said, obviously all humans are humans. This fact should absolutely not be used to suggest otherwise.
There is 10x more genetic variance between humans and our closest cousins (Bonobos) than there is within the human genome.
Absolutely- although this is just another way of saying what I, along with the comment I responded to, have said.
Never mind dogs. The whole genus Canis is basically one species.
No- there are heavy differences between wolves, coyotes, and jackals. You can argue semantics between the species under those umbrellas, but not between those umbrellas.
First- jackals and coyotes do not live anywhere near each other for any overlap to have occurred at any time. However, they fill similar niches in their ecosystems. Their similarities come from convergent evolution moreso than anything else. Think red foxes and Grey foxes.
When compared to wolves, there are even starker differences. They look different, fill different niches, and behave differently. It's not just the learned behaviors, either. A coyote pup raised with wolves or dogs is going to have difficulties communicating with their adopted pack and vice versa. It's not impossible, and they do learn how to get along, but the differences are clear.
The main reason these animals can so freely interbreed is more closely related to chromosomal similarities than phenotype similarities.
Some animals to contrast this with is again red and grey foxes, or even goats and sheep. Very, very similar phenotypes, somewhat similar behavior to the unaware, but completely unable to breed viable offspring.
There is more genetic variance within human racial groups than there is between them.
Ask homo erectus and homo habilis about the evolutionary bush and speciation.
r/confidentlyracist
Banned
Why am I surprised that it actually existed?
Honestly, surprised it got banned. Even the acknowledgement of established racism on reddit is a forbidden topic; explicitly acknowledging its existence is impossible to ban without openly protecting it.
It was banned due to being unmoderated
That's actually a little reassuring.
How would you moderate something like that?
That's what they say about every ban
More like unhinged, I guess.
I have had temp bans before for explaining why something is or can be viewed as racist on a comment/post explicitly asking for an explanation.
different breeds ≠ different species
Also his “for example” is pretty much the only definitive difference (hair, eye, and skin colour). Other than a few minor or rare characteristics and medical conditions, people of all races are remarkably similar underneath, and some people of different races are physically more similar to each other than some people of the same race.
Race never existed as an objective classification (nationality, place of birth, family, or affiliation were the normal ways of classifying people for most of history), we invented it, and really not that long ago.
On top of that "race" was originally just a botanical term relating to plants. Eg: cauliflower, broccoli, and romanesco all used to be referred to as races of brassica.
Then Darwin published his book, which had the full title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In this book the only discussion of race was, again, to do with plants. The "Favoured Races" in the title was mostly him saying why he thought romanesco was the perfect brassica.
Unfortunately however people with their own racist agenda started to refer to humans as having races off of the back of that book, and would misquote Darwin to justify their bigotries.
Not only is race not an objective classification, but it is being phased out of serious scientific discourse and at this point it is a predominantly American cultural thing. Furthermore, there is limited correlation between perceived "race" in the US and actual genetic ancestry. For example Bryc et al., 2015: "Our results provide empirical support that, over recent centuries, many individuals with partial African and Native American ancestry have "passed" into the white community, with multiple lines of evidence establishing African and Native American ancestry in self-reported European Americans."
Different breeds ≠ different subspecies even
Racist AND stupid. They so often go together.
The way he put "human" in quotation marks, as if he's not sure if he should call us that, makes me want to throw my keyboard lol
The latter is a prerequisite for the former.
I bet his bookshelf is full if interesting titles
I doubt they have a bookshelf
But where are they gonna put their copy of the Turner Diaries? Oh yeah, by the bed next to the Kleenex and lotion.
Don't be silly they don't read.
YouTube playlist*
Rumble playlist*
Guy thinks terriers and schnauzers are species names.
In other words: I am a racist and my strong argument is to repeat outdated pseudoscience from 200 years ago. This is very normal now
The number of white supremacists I have met that are of Italian or Irish descent is ridiculous. When you point out that less than 100 years ago they wouldn't be considered white they get all purple and blustery. It's hilarious.
Aren't irish people usually the least racist because they also experienced oppression? Some white supremacists even call Irish people the "n-words" of the white race.
Also, the Native American community sent financial aid to the Irish during the potato famine, and the Irish remembered that kindness and returned the favor by sending financial aid during the recent pandemic. So the idea that an Irishman would be a white supremacist is so weird to me.
Indeed, but, just because as a group they tend to be more compassionate, doesn't mean they all are. As a teen I was almost roped into a chapter of the KKK. There were definitely Irish in the group. It's easy to get caught up in groups like that when you're in an isolated community. Thankfully, I was already an atheist at the time or they would have let me in and my life would be drastically worse for it. I have since gone out of my way to help point out racist dog whistles
This guy has absolutely no clue what they are talking about. They use 'subspecies' and 'species' interchangeably to refer to domesticated breed.
We have done genetic testing and it has shown that there is more genetic diversity between individuals from the African continent than between an African individual and an European individual. Human races are socially constructed not based on biology. Just think of this: a black person and a white person procreate. Yet their child is considered 'black' or 'mixed race' but not white, despite the child having just as much white genetics as black genetics. The idea is completely nonsensical. That is because race is not science. It is a socially constructed idea to racialize and therefore otherize minorities. This is why our ideas of what is and is not 'white' change over time. 'White' itself is not defined by anything that it is, but rather what it is not. And white supremacists will always infight about who does or does not count. It is a self-defeating ideology. If they were to make an ethnostate they'd need a new scapegoat and turn on each other. The definition of 'white' would get narrower and narrower over time.
Imagine this mixed race couple having two children, one turns out more white, the other darker (not unheard of at all). Genetic testing would clearly show they are siblings, but they look different because of phenotypes and gene expression. Yet some racist apartheid regime would deem one less than the other, based on skin color alone. It's not scientific at all.
Yep, completely true. Who does and does not pass as 'white' will have a great influence on how they may be treated. If you want to have a laugh look up 'Hessy Levinsons Taft'.
And Werner Goldberg.
Do not tell this guy about twins he’ll lose it
Fortunately a predominantly US thing. I can't remember ever hearing anyone here in Europe talk about "race" without either talking about nazis or Formula 1
(Warning: This comment contains hyperbole. To the readers who may have difficulty picking up hyperbole, please re-read the comment before attempting to correct me with saying that it's not 100 % accurate. Thank you.)
These views stem from a very old, very outdated, and VERY RACIST form of pseudoscience.
People who hold value in race supremacy will fall back on these claims because ‘technically’ at one point in time these theories were thought to be true. Regardless of the fact that they have not only been debunked, but genetically proven wrong.
And if this person isn’t a race supremacist, then they are being influenced by one. People don’t just stumble across these types of key points.
I can find sources that date back to like the 17th century in which these claims were “true” but it’s a dark rabbit hole filled with misinformation, eugenics, and bigotry.
These people probably think Mr. Hands gave birth to a centaur
Yeah. They "disappeared" him to hide the truth.
TIL that my wife and I are in an interspecies relationship because we have different hair and eye colours.
My wife changes her hair colour regularly, did I marry a changling?
inter-sub-species according to OOP
Spicy
This guy is definitely from the dumb breed of the human species.
The differences between human DNA is less than .1% we are 99.9% the same.
What does that mean for mixed races? I’m not trying to get a “gotcha” or anything. I’m just curious.
Well unless you're mixing a human and a wolf it means nothing at all. All the differences that we can see between humans from hair color, eye color, skin color, height, shape, smell, invisible markings to the najed eye all of it is held within that less than .1% of DNA.
He's wrong because he's mistaken about what "subspecies" means and then drawn a bunch of conclusions from that misconception.
First of all, animals which are different subspecies are still the same species. Subspecies is a division WITHIN the species.
Second, different breed of dogs are not different subspecies. The subspecies division with dogs is between wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).
Third, being able to breed together AND produce fertile offspring is one of main markers for two animals being the same species. Dogs and wolves can produce fertile offspring because they are the same species. A horse and a donkey can only produce sterile offspring because they are different species.
And the worst part is that the "area of science that has been scrubbed" that he refers to is the pseudoscience of "scientific racism". It was rejected because it was wrong and lacked any actual scientific basis.
Perfectly stated.
What? All dogs are canis familiaris
Yeah he’s wrong on both.
Though I will give the aliens a little grace on dogs. If you saw a chihuahua next to a Great Pyrenees you would not immediately think “yeah these are the same thing”
Scientists have done gene sequencing on most or all of the dog breeds, and there are some real surprises on which breed is genetically closer to which, and which is closest to the wolf. (None of which I can recall off the top of my head, unfortunately).
Edit: Found one article on "which dog breeds are closest to wolves". Huskies are on the list, probably not too surprising. But so are Shih Tzus.
Or canis lupus familiaris, depending on which biologist you ask. Which further erodes his point
Guess that's why we can't have babies with people from other races...
breeds and species are not the same thing.
After ww2 the UN did a comprehensive study on starvation. I forget the exact time, about 2 months without food. all people from every race reported the same symptoms of starvation. Hallucinations of objects as food for example. The conclusion, we all starve the same. We are all human.
And yet… dogs are in fact still all the same species, just with different breeds. Similar to humans with different races.
Still all the same species though. wtf is this logic?
Different colors mean you're a different species now?
I guess somehow my purebred rabbits gave birth to kits of three different species then... wild. (including one that didn't match any of the parents...the parents were brown and black rex rabbits, the kits were brown, black and albino)
The definition of "species" isn't flawless to be fair but by any metric Africans, Asians, Europeans, Native Australians and Americans are indeed the same species. As are dogs.
Tell us you know nothing about biology without telling us you know nothing about biology.
I sleep better knowing I’m not the same species as that dangleberry.
All dogs are the same species tho
There is less genetic diversity in the entire human race than just one troop of chimpanzees. We went through a bottle neck when we almost died out
Um no. Different dog breeds are still the same species despite looking vastly different because they can breed together and they have enough genetic similarities between them.
This is just blatant racism.
Wow....same theory the nazis had about humans. I guess thats one way to tell everyone on the internet that you're a racist.....
Homie reading ALL the wrong sites. Poor dumb dumb.
I will say the one aspect of truth is that sub species are capable of crossbreeding. for instance us and Neanderthals, us and the Denisovans and so on.
Science is gradually coming to the conclusion that Neanderthals, Homo sapiens and Denisovans as well as others are actually all sub species of a larger human species.
But human beings are absolutely all the same species. For that matter our mutual closest living female relative was only 100 to 200,000 years or so ago.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2877732/
We are a relatively genetically similar species. Rhesus monkeys for instance have five times as much genetic variance than we do .
This may be because of a near extinction event.
900,000 years ago or so there were possibly less than 2000 humans left alive. This was probably because of horrible climate change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/
So yeah, we were as endangered as cheetahs.
We’ve made it back since then, but despite all of our literally skin surface differences, we are all more than 99% genetically identical under the hood.
🫡
Neanderthals: if you can’t beat ‘em , fuck em
Yes. And we did .
Every human being alive, including people who ancestors as far as they know, never left Africa carried Neanderthal DNA. People from Asia have 20 times as much. ( we’re still not sure why.)
So yes you and I have Neanderthal DNA.
Hope you’re having a good one .
🫡
From the very beginning humans looked out at the world and said: Would.
Dogs are in the same species, so are we. What is this madness? Punishment for WWII? By whom?
“Them”
Ah, yes... Giant ants!
Fuck Nazis
This guy might be a different species, unfortunately we’ll never know if he can interbreed with Homo sapiens
Hah, we’re extremely genetically homogeneous. Humans have absolutely minimal genetic diversity because our ancestors kept nearly going extinct.
Literally a 5 second Google search on what parameters define a species would have prevented this.
It would not. It would have provided the information necessary to correct his misunderstanding. But it would not have prevented this post. The only way to be this stupid is to actively reject any new information.
It seems that there are more and more people nowadays who actively reject new information, especially if it's scientific information. I thought we were getting smarter as a species, but we have somehow made U-turn and are now going in the opposite direction.
Wolves are invasive species because biologists don’t understand science. I’ve seen that claim often.
True.
Bro thinks dogs are subspecies lmao
Dogs are a subspecies. But they're all the same subspecies. Wild to think that this idiot believes his own relatives are a different subspecies if they pop out with a different gene combo for eye colour.
He’s correct! It’s us humans against whatever specimen he confidently identifies as🤪🤪🤪
That person has 100% claimed that Elon was doing a "Roman Salute"
What kind of eugenics hogwash am I looking at right now. Jesus H. Christ this activated my fight or flight instincts.
This is like a shopping list of idiocy.
"A species is a group of living organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring."
We can only hope this idiot actually IS a different species.
That's the simplified version. In reality it's not quite that clear cut. But yes, OOP is hallucinating
All dogs are the same species, the differences within a species are breeds. Humans technically have breeds too in the sense they're differently adapted to their respective environments and predisposed to certain different genetic conditions, but what's his point about that?
Someone downvoted you for citing actual scientific facts. Fucking ridiculous.
Even educated people don't know the difference between breeds and species😂
Any human can breed with any other human. NOT different 'species'.
If two animals can mate and produce viable offspring, they’re the same species.
It’s kind of a thing we use to determine if two closely related life forms are different species than each other.
Horses and donkeys are different species because Mules are sterile.
Lions and Tigers are different species because Ligers and Tigons are sterile (usually).
Chihuahuas and mastiffs are the same species because that monstrosity would be about to reproduce.
not necessarily- coyotes, wolves, and dogs are all able to produce fertile offspring with each other. they're the same family, but not the same species- at least coyotes aren't.
A random African and a random European probably have more in common genetically than two random Africans.
All breeds of dogs are members of the same subspecies. Also, all humans are so genetically similar, that if humans worked like dog breeds, we would all be considered exact same breed.
You would think it would be more useful for people to understand how science works, then they wouldn't find it so easy to make up dumb bullshit.
He's wrong about EVERYTHING he says. Amazingly wrong.
Wrong about everything. And confidently so! He clearly doesn't understand speciation.
ALOT more differences between men and women than between races
All dogs are C. Lupis Familiaris. They're all literally the same species and subspecies. Dog breeds are actually a decent comparison to race because despite how many physical characteristics are different, they're the same species with largely the same capabilities and mental capacities. It breaks down when comparing across size, and there are some breeds that are more prone to aggressive behavior, unlike in humans, but the idea works if we only look at appearance.
Wanna start a pool on how many Nazi flags that guy has in his basement?
We are the same species because we can procreate without our offspring becoming infertile by default.
Sorry, but chihuahuas are the same species as great Danes. Canis domestica.
Things like skin or hair color do not define a species. They do define a "breed," but we don't use that word when referring to species Homo sapiens.
If races were breeds then I guess I'm a mutt lol
Most of us are these days, very few people are 100% from one area
Lol, no
Isn't the very definition of a species based on the ability to breed?
Breed viable offspring. Like I think male donkeys and female horses breed mules, which are nearly always sterile.
Someone just discovered phrenology.
Humans are all one species. Lines are slightly blurred with it but not among other humans. Anyway, we’re all great apes. Let that person know.
Dog breeds are NOT subspecies!
What a really convoluted way to say that you believe in eugenics.
Who's gonna tell him dog breeds are all the same species (canis familiaris)?
I have a sister with black hair and mine is blond. Today I learned...
Well, he's so confident, surely he has some biological definition of species where there are different species within homo sapiens... I'm mainly aware of the standard definition of "able to procreate with one another" which already falls flat.
Lmao dog breeds aren’t different species either, the entire test of whether two living beings are the same species is if they can produce fertile offspring
It's not quite so clear cut in actual biology. For example there is great scientific debate whether dogs and grey wolves are the same species canis lupus (with dogs being canis lupus familiaris) or if dogs are their own species (canis familiaris) despite fertile offspring.
Actual biology has many grey areas which interfere with ideology. Sexual differentiation, for instance. And predictably someone has downvoted me because of their ideologies 😂
Somebody didn't pay attention in Biology class on the day when the teacher shared the definition of species.
O H N O
Seriously though. WTF.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
So that’s why I’m single! Fucking species man
He got his information from monsieur candie
Perhaps they are confusing Species and specie, and believe that they are highlighting how quarters and dimes are different coins than Canadian Loonies?
Skin color is sailing we were always evolved to be able to change, no we aren't.
I remember seeing that comment and it was such obvious BS that I’m shocked more people didn’t argue. Not even isolated human races are genetically distinct enough to be considered a different subspecies. They’re more like morphs, really. Domestic dogs also aren’t considered subspecies. They’re considered breeds of the same species.
As always, if it can breed together and produce viable offspring that can also breed, it's the same species.
Granted, the jury is still out on these 1800's skull shape race science motherfuckers because they're never getting laid, but I don't see what that has to do with the rest of us.
It's not quite so clear cut in actual biology. For example there is great scientific debate whether dogs and grey wolves are the same species canis lupus (with dogs being canis lupus familiaris) or if dogs are their own species (canis familiaris) despite fertile offspring.
Nothing is clear cut in biology, of course, but this is the plucked chicken we've held up and decided to use as the standard going forward. We can debate it, sure, but the current system is this until decided otherwise.
Interbreeding is an important part of the definition, but it's not the only part of the definition. You're presenting the simplified version you learned in school as if it is the whole truth, when it's not. For example, cross-species fertile female offspring is more common than cross-species fertile male offspring.
Fair enough, but counter counterpoint: this is a jab at a race 'scientist.' I dont particularly care about having my response be exactly right, since I know they're exactly wrong.
What if there are two species of humans?
Homo Sapiens, the most general)
Homo Credens, those who believe in religion, conspiracy theories, mystics, UFOs, etc.
/Σ
I can sort of see his point. After all there are 4 different species of Giraffe, not just the one.
https://giraffeconservation.org/giraffe-species/
He’s confusing species with class or classification. Classification is a specific group within a species. In dogs that word is, breed. In humans it’s, race.
The predominantly US cultural concept of race has limited correlation with genetics and is very different from dog breeds. That is part of the reason why race is being abandoned in scientific literature and discourse and why ethnicity – which is a more complex aspect including culture and language – is replacing it.
Look at a pug and a husky and tell me their differences are as big as eye colour.
they're still the same species. canis familiaris
yes, but they are different races of that species and their differences are bigger then we have between any homo sapiens sapiens. I'm trying to argue that the person that is in the screen shot is stupid