Africans different species?

Ravinoff

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
306
19
23
Country
Canada
Gennadios said:
Here's the thing, if Africans had been a different species, they wouldn't have been able to reproduce with any other breed of human. To be classified as a separate species, two individuals need to either not be able to reproduce wholesale or have an extremely high chance of producing sterile offspring.

And yes, African's genetic diversity is through the roof, they're more variable than the rest of the human race, but it has to do with the fact that humanity started out in Africa. Only reasonably small bands of humans migrated out of the continent, and those that did only had themselves to interbreed with, so our genetic diversity is nowhere as great.
I'm not gonna touch the idea of blacks being a different species, but I am going to address the notion that different species can't interbreed. It's actually quite common for different species or subspecies within the same genus to interbreed. Take the liger, for example. Nobody can dispute that the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (Panthera tigris) are two different species. However, a male lion and a female tiger can crossbreed and give birth to the largest cat in existence, the liger. Those hybrids will be fertile as well, unlike hybrids of species carrying different numbers of chromosomes.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Coming off really racist, brah.

There is more genetic variation within 'racial groups' than between them. Of course there are genetic differences and it's not just melanin. In case you weren't previously aware, melanin is controlled by genetics (and epigenetics).
 

TehCookie

New member
Sep 16, 2008
3,919
0
0
Look at how much dogs vary and yet they are still the same species. People are the same, races are different but they're still human.
 

hatseflats

New member
Aug 22, 2011
45
0
0
rainz555 said:
but is it minimal, as hard as i try to not come off as racist, there are observable differences between races. im not gonna come out and say "every asian i have ever talked to is really smart hurrf durff". but for example the statistic that "African-Americans" are more likely to commit crime (again, statistically) than a white from the same upbringing.

why did the Africans never create, why did they never expand there own knowledge. why does every single african nation (excluding south Africa) seem to either rely on aid (at the extreme) or struggle becauseof their own pride. The enviroment cant be to blame for the inherrent corruption that all african governments seem to suffer from. i hate to say this, but south africa flourished, and it was ruled by the "white man". Is that a genuine advantage conferred from breeding with neanderthals all those millenia ago?
Oh dear we've got ourselves a racist! Or someone with limited common knowledge.
The fact that black/brown people (sorry, no "African-American" bullshit for me; I'm not referring to the continent where some of their ancestors came from - everybody's ancestors come from Africa and Africa has a very diverse population) commit more crimes, statistically, depends on many factors and need not be the result of a genetic difference (in fact AFAIK it is not the result of their DNA). One reason is that black/brown people are more likely to work low-paying jobs or be without employment. The reason for that is again varied, some of it is the history of black/brown people in the US, some of it is racism, some of it is a poverty trap (these people are poor, therefore cannot afford high-quality education for their siblings, therefore the next generation is more likely to be poor as well), some of it is culture.
There are many reasons for such differences but I believe "genetic differences" is the one factor which can be ruled out, simply because the differences aren't very large.

Africans not inventing anything or whatever, too, depends on many different factors. One such factor is that Africa is a genuinely terrifyingly large continent. Which means there is an abundance of arable land. The result of that it has been rather easy for people in sub-saharan Africa to gather food. They did not have to work very hard nor did they have a need for large scale coordination, which requires a government of some kind.
An obvious exception is Egypt, where land was scarce. And one of the first great civilizations developed.
 

JacenElectronica

New member
May 30, 2010
47
0
0
cant be a different species just different genes, just like Asians cant metabolise alochol that doesnt make them a different specie.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,587
251
88
How does it matter? A Pug looks nothing like a Doberman, yet they're still both dogs. No matter how different we are, we are still human.
 

kaziard

New member
Oct 28, 2008
710
0
0
do not attribute to racism, that which can be attributed to ignorance. give the poor guy a break :p all humans are definitely of the same species.
 

Navvan

New member
Feb 3, 2011
560
0
0
Ravinoff said:
Gennadios said:
Here's the thing, if Africans had been a different species, they wouldn't have been able to reproduce with any other breed of human. To be classified as a separate species, two individuals need to either not be able to reproduce wholesale or have an extremely high chance of producing sterile offspring.

And yes, African's genetic diversity is through the roof, they're more variable than the rest of the human race, but it has to do with the fact that humanity started out in Africa. Only reasonably small bands of humans migrated out of the continent, and those that did only had themselves to interbreed with, so our genetic diversity is nowhere as great.
I'm not gonna touch the idea of blacks being a different species, but I am going to address the notion that different species can't interbreed. It's actually quite common for different species or subspecies within the same genus to interbreed. Take the liger, for example. Nobody can dispute that the lion (Panthera leo) and the tiger (Panthera tigris) are two different species. However, a male lion and a female tiger can crossbreed and give birth to the largest cat in existence, the liger. Those hybrids will be fertile as well, unlike hybrids of species carrying different numbers of chromosomes.
That is not entirely true. To take your Liger example it is only the females that have any fertility, the males are completely sterile. Thus there can be no breeding of Ligers (the female must be mated with a Lion or Tiger male). It is actually fairly common for females of the hybrid species to have some level of fertility (although usually lower than normal). It even occurs (albeit much rarer) in some animal hybrids that have an odd number of chromosomes. Also it doesn't so much matter if they have the same number of chromosomes but only if the number of the hybrid is even, and of course the species are related enough to produce any offspring at all. Can't be mating those Pigs and Lions... the horror.

If they could reproduce both fertile members of both sexes reliably they would be same species. As it stands they are simply very closely related species.

Subspecies as its name implies is below species on the classification list. Thus it is an inherent property of a subspecies to belong to the same species as its sister subspecies.

However there is always the chance of a freak of nature (I mean that in a very improbable outcome) of offsprings of hybrids.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
zehydra said:
rainz555 said:
but is it minimal, as hard as i try to not come off as racist, there are observable differences between races. im not gonna come out and say "every asian i have ever talked to is really smart hurrf durff". but for example the statistic that "African-Americans" are more likely to commit crime (again, statistically) than a white from the same upbringing.

why did the Africans never create, why did they never expand there own knowledge. why does every single african nation (excluding south Africa) seem to either rely on aid (at the extreme) or struggle becauseof their own pride. The enviroment cant be to blame for the inherrent corruption that all african governments seem to suffer from. i hate to say this, but south africa flourished, and it was ruled by the "white man". Is that a genuine advantage conferred from breeding with neanderthals all those millenia ago?
In the 19th century and prior, Africa has been exploited time and time again by Imperialist nations, which has in turn, created a history of exploitation which the Africans themselves continue against their own people.

Truth be told, different Civilizations grow at different rates. If Africa had been left alone by various Empires, it would probably be a lot better off today than it is.

No kidding it would be. The single best place of higher learning in the world in the late middle ages/renaissance was the University of Timbuktu, which was located in Africa. Various cultures in Africa (which is an /enormous/ continent, easily bigger than the US and all of Europe combined) were technologically advanced for their time. It's just that most of them were conquered by outside forces in the 19th century, which continued until the late 20th century. It's going to take a long ass time to recover from that, if it ever happens.
 

Calatar

New member
May 13, 2009
379
0
0
Here are some relevant videos if you're genuinely interested in the underlying genetic differences.
Basically, while there are a few non-trivial genetic differences between human haplogroups, stereotyping people by race and skin color is woefully inadequate for discerning those genetic markers. Moreover, genetic differences between people are much less relevant to their performance in any category than their cultural and economic background.
 

Talvrae

The Purple Fairy
Dec 8, 2009
896
0
0
Quijiboh said:
"Africans" is a rather far-reaching term, when in fact it refers specifically to the Hadza, Pygmies and Sandawe. Also, the fact that minute traces of a different human ancestor's DNA can be found in their genes is, to me, insufficient evidence of their being a different species.

As the first article says, "the total number of known human DNA variants is about 40 million?. There is room for a helluva lot of diversity before species becomes an issue.
^^Excatelly this, your spot on
 

Faulty Turmoil

New member
Nov 25, 2009
496
0
0
I thought that creatures are a different species if they can't produce fertile offspring?

So, what we need to do is have someone go over there and have sex with them. Then wait for the child to mature and he/she needs to have sex with someone and if a baby is born then we are the same species.

I, of course, volunteer myself to this noble cause... for science, of course...
 

Penguin_Factory

New member
Sep 13, 2010
197
0
0
Guys, you're all being super unfair! Don't you see he just wants to talk about this very important issue? Can't we all be mature here and not jump on people and call them racist just for bringing up the inferiority of non-white races in a conversation?

I think he's making a good point! Why can't we talk about how black people commit more crime than white people [http://xkcd.com/285/] in a scholarly, rational way? And what if someone wants to come in and talk about what a great and strong leader Hitler was, purely in a historical context, should we call them a neo-Nazi? Surely not.

And if I were to propose a scholarly discussion on the pressing issue of whether or not all illegal immigrants should be rounded up and shot no one would accuse me of being racist, would they? After all, we're just having a conversation!

You people should all be ashamed of yourselves.
 

Findlebob

New member
Mar 24, 2011
331
0
0
Well I actually think everyone are sub species of African humans since humanity first evolved their (probably) so we have evolved a little differently to handle the environments we found ourselves in. So that would make African humans the closest to pure human in my opinion.

Im white if it matters.
 

Penguin_Factory

New member
Sep 13, 2010
197
0
0
I beg you to please point out exactly where i implied that Africans were a sub-species. I specifically stated I didn't want this to be a racist argument
but any dog owner would know, that you don't treat different breeds the same way. should this information that has come to light be strong enough to compel goverments for a policy change?
Seriously dude, you're not fooling anyone. Don't be shy, pull out that swastika armband you've got in your sock drawer so we can start discussing how you're wrong about absolutely everything.

EDIT

From the link you gave me:

"Funded by the New Century Foundation"

From Wikipedia:

"The New Century Foundation is nonprofit organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations. From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund,and has been described as a white supremacist group"

Oh my, what a surprise.
 

Penguin_Factory

New member
Sep 13, 2010
197
0
0
rainz555 said:
Penguin_Factory said:
I beg you to please point out exactly where i implied that Africans were a sub-species. I specifically stated I didn't want this to be a racist argument
but any dog owner would know, that you don't treat different breeds the same way. should this information that has come to light be strong enough to compel goverments for a policy change?
Seriously dude, you're not fooling anyone. Don't be shy, pull out that swastika armband you've got in your sock drawer so we can start discussing how you're wrong about absolutely everything.
ARRRGHHHHH this is very frustrating.

I DIDN'T SAY A LIKEN AFRICANS TO DOGS.
I didn't say you did.

What you did do is suggest that governments should treat people differently based on their race and quote a publication by a white supremacist group that advocates racial profiling in defense of your argument.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
Yeah, the basic definition of a "species" is one that has been mentioned by other people already. Since Africans can breed effectively with every other race, we are all the same species.

In the scientific community, there are some discussions about the origins of humanity, mostly centering around whether humans all come from the same tribe, or whether humans evolved simultaneously in different areas. But whatever the case, the genetic records show without a doubt that there is a surprising diversity within races, and a surprising conformity throughout humankind. Meaning, a fellow Gaelic person like myself can actually -on the genetic level- be very different from me. While someone of African descent can be surprisingly and comparatively similar.

This diversity of genetics is actually necessary and vital to the human race, because it allows for a wider-array of immune-defenses. With genetic conformity comes a narrowing of the human immune system's defenses, but genetic diversity widens these, allowing humans to survive more easily.

Of course, race itself plays only a minor role in determining how diverse a person's immune system is, but proof that Africans or any other race is genetically divergent only strengthens the case for interbreeding between the races in question.