Any reputable sources on this?

Guarantee all those animals have been divergent from each other longer than humans. Humans have scarily little genetic diversity when it comes to other species and no amount of extremely cherry picked images will change that.

Fun fact about the "slight genetic difference" between humans.
The aborigines of Australia and the Japenese have over 20 percent divergent DNA from one and other.
Making them under the current classifications of the scientific community
Different subspecies to one and other.
I wonder when the scientific community is openly going to admit this and classify the first seprate sub species of humans to ever be discovered!

Thanks for these! I guess I she wants a reputable source that specifically states that we are not the same species as an African... She needs to be spoon fed. I'm starting to think I'm half nigger now even though my DNA says Pure Euro..

Aboriginals also have bone structure extremely similar to homo erectus

Where's your source?

For two animals to be the same species they dont have to look the same you fucking retard.
Case and point dogs.
The thing that defines whether or not things are of the same species is: "can these two animals produce fertile offspring".

A donkey and a horse produce a mule however the mule is infertile and therefore a donkey is not the same species as a horse.

Jow Forums confirmed to be the dumbest board once again

Attached: 1564066288549.jpg (480x480, 51K)

youtube.com/watch?v=tI1rbIYwK4A

STOP MAKING SENSE MUH HALF-BAKED MEME IS DEFINITELY REAL SCIENCE REEEEE

Attached: 1509851921478.jpg (250x182, 7K)

Yea basically I want to find an article that refutes this argument. SPECIES not Race

Imagine have this level of cognitive dissonance.

Attached: 1526589593231.png (478x523, 12K)

no shit nigger. You nigger white fathers butt fucked my ancestors because your kinds is natural homo fucking faggots, demons, devils, Satan. Remember, we made you, and gave your power. You dig up us, you have no origin cracker other than out of the recessive germs of the black man.

What is this babbling nonsense? Are you from the Nation of Islam?

nature.com/scitable/definition/species-312
Here a source of Nature one of the leading scientific journals.

Here is a picture of a mixed race family

you fucking retard

Attached: 348dd54ba142bfa27a4609e967cb771f.jpg (383x250, 20K)

We have been divergent for more than 700,000 years AT LEAST. Africand have two ghost population hominid admixture of 2%-13% while whites have neanderthal admixture of 1-2% and asians denisovan admixture of 2%.

Imagine being in debt to a kike so you can pay fake money to a Marxists institution that shows you how to "think".

And I bet climate change is a hoax, too.

Attached: 1530531671313.jpg (500x500, 54K)

IMAGINE GOING IN TO DEBT TO GO TO COLLEGE
HAHAHAHA FUCKING RETARD BURGERS ONCE AGAIN AHAHAHAHHAHAah

Attached: praise.png (1267x632, 850K)

>The thing that defines whether or not things are of the same species is: "can these two animals produce fertile offspring".
That is simply not true. There are plenty of different species whose hybrids are fertile. Why do you idiots always state this bullshit.

sciencenews.org/article/hybrids-reveal-barriers-successful-mating-between-species

>The thing that defines whether or not things are of the same species is: "can these two animals produce fertile offspring".
Wrong. Grizzly bears and polar bears are different species but can produce fertile offspring, so can wolves and coyotes, and both occur naturally in the wild. That is not an absolute metric.

Attached: 1561418512305.jpg (413x600, 76K)

Thanks Mohammed! I didn't know such creatures existed!

sciencenews.org/article/hybrids-reveal-barriers-successful-mating-between-species

Well whys the white one tend be gay or autistic

This is when their cognitive dissonance goes into crisis mode and they either ignore facts or freak out

Yes but the offspring of these hybrids have a way lower chance of being fertile you fucking retard.
There is litterally a picture in the article.
Did you even read the article before posting your cancer?

That's a weird argument. That's like saying "oh so you must've voted for Trump if not Hillary!" Climate change is very real in my opinion. Let me guess you must think the earth is flat because you don't agree with me!

Yes but the offspring of these hybrids have a way lower chance of being fertile you fucking retard.

how about read your own article you fucking moron

Your fucking eyes.

You idiot it depends on the combination of species. Many combinations have as high a chance of fertile offspring as intra-special reproduction.

But I mean I ofcourse could be wrong I await your scientific papers gentleman you sound like very qualified biologists. Please inform me when your papers get accepted in a journal. And no ArXiV doesnt count

>Climate change is very real in my opinion.
According to, as you call them, Marxist institutions.

Attached: 554421_1.jpg (630x630, 72K)

But they are fertile this invalidating your precious false-premise that you cling to lol.

Source = my ass

i am the salt

Attached: 61LESutzBpL._SX522_.jpg (522x522, 18K)

Ofcourse such a definition is an oversimplification you cant include literally all edge cases in a general definition are you this dumb?

And actual scientists who show their work and explain exactly what is observed.
Not that you care about reality whatsoever.

not just any nobel prize winner, literal discoverer of dna

You brainwashed idiots are literally clinging to a rudimentary elementary-school oversimplified false-premise because you cant accept facts. sciencenews.org/article/defining-species-fuzzy-art

Read my post you retard

>claims without proof despite already being proven wrong once
>appeal to authority
yeah, I think we're done here, you're just incoherent now
You've already made one false claim, and now when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you just fall back to another incorrect position.
I can find no evidence that Coywolves nor Prizzly bears are any less fertile than their parents, so feel free to provide that evidence if it does exist.

Attached: 1534283994817.png (419x281, 106K)

Then why do you cite a falsehood?

>What is this babbling nonsense? Are you from the Nation of Islam?
I do believe the babbling blackanon is referring to "Yakub" here.

Attached: yakub.jpg (1280x720, 121K)

Literal doublethink lol

Nope he co-discovered the helix structure

IT IS IN THE ARTICLE THAT WAS LINKED YOU IDIOT

Not "if they can" but "if they do" produce fertile offspring. Many species can crossbreed very effectively but they choose not to. You really think dogs and wolves cannot interbreed? Or the hundreds of species of butterfly? Fact is that species classification has always and still is somewhat subjective. However the genetic distance between human races is further than many similar species we see today.

>Not an appeal to authority your retarded ideas just wouldnt get published because they are factually wrong

It doesnt even matter if they are less likely to be fertile it still proves them completely wrong.

How about actually read the thread before posting so that you don't make yourself look like a jackass.

Attached: 1539120786269.jpg (278x181, 10K)

source = my ass

There is less genetic variability between humans and chimps than there is between chimps and gorillas.

I have a Master's degree in taxonomy. Ask me anything.

No because for them to be the same species they would have to always be fertile excluding obvious things such as being born without ovarian tubes etc.

>The thing that defines whether or not things are of the same species is: "can these two animals produce fertile offspring".
Only you and your fellow simps have been posting factually wrong statements jew.

Sorry t. Brainlet here.
Where can I find something that says 20% DNA divergence is required for a subspecies? Isn't 20% genetic divergence extremely high? Don't humans and potatoes only have like 2% genetic divergence or am I thinking of something else?

Yet another academic crucified for heresy on the subject of race
m.youtube.com/channel/UCbUJ4bSI5LGysuouybbGA7g

Attached: 6FB952E2-CF56-4014-9155-674A13521078.png (1200x800, 1.21M)

No species breeds 100% fertile offspring idiot

>muh we can all breed so we're the same species!
>Neanderthal could breed with the "humans" but is considered a different species

Can they reproduce? If so, they are the same "Kind" which is a biblical term, but I'm sure there is a biological term as well. A dog cannot reproduce with a cat.

(You)

Attached: index.jpg (225x225, 9K)

See Neanderthal could breed with humans just fine, and we consider them separate because of bone structure.

Negroes, Chinks and various Caucasians all have different bone structure

Whether or not Neanderthals were actually a different species is still disputed by biologists. Please do your research.

>Fertility in hybrids is often subpar. Sperm from one species may not be able to fuse with eggs from another, and other molecular incompatibilities may cause embryos to fail. Sometimes being a hybrid is a death sentence. Those problems have genetic and physiological roots that scientists are only beginning to understand.
Lower average fertility does not mean a lower chance to be fertile, and it already disproves your original point that different species cannot breed. And even by their own admission, there simply hasn't been enough research on the subject to provide definitive answers, and I guarantee you there has been absolutely no research done on humans in this regard because it is a verboten topic. Imagine if someone actually did submit a paper saying they've found evidence that human races are separate species. Do you really think that would get published in today's political climate? Not only would it not be published, anyone naive enough to even suggest the idea would be stripped of their titles, fired from wherever they work, and shunned from the "scientific community".
Literally what even is your argument at this point? We've already proven different species can breed and produce fertile offspring, so your idea that human races absolutely cannot be separate species is patently false.

Attached: 1523833708227.jpg (615x477, 100K)

Exactly its falsehoods enforced.

This might help with your Sis.

Attached: Diversity.png (877x220, 102K)

I don't believe I'm a marxists for putting 2 and 2 together regarding that subversive topic. What are you getting at guy?

“So this suggests that the male hybrids might not have been fertile, whereas the females might have been fully fertile,” Svante Pääbo
Source = geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/02/04/were-neanderthals-a-different-species/

Retarded upsidedown desert nigger

Consensus is they still are

But, they clearly aren't if we use the modern definition

I know you're mad because you and your false premise have been objectively BTFO and now you are trying to derail the big boys' serious discussion that hurts your feefees.

Definitely this, don't forget how they've been using 100% feels arguments to thwart the science in the DSM about trannies.
Ruined the long career of a brilliant scientist because he presented facts they couldn't stand.

A 50 percent fertile rate is actually within the realm of "successful"

So, Neanderthal was human

Notice how the definitely in-good-faith race-realists completely ignored this.

I have already elaborated on my premise
However the general rule of fertility still stands
OF COURSE there are edge cases. I dont deny that.

very sense

much logic

too reason

so roast

Attached: 1509851631511.png (555x407, 13K)

And right at the top it talks about Italian Sparrows hybrids ya fucking feels-operated moron

Yes but not homo sapiens but definitly a Humanoid.
Now put some shrimp on the barbie for me

Classic passive aggressive display of a loser

He fell for the Out of Africa theory.

I posted a different link than you retard.

hahaha that's the best brainlet meme I've seen in a long time

So you're saying two different species had fertile offspring

So they are the same species but with different morphological traits?

They also say "they think"; it's not conclusive that the males weren't.

We know they could breed successfully, and we know that the differences between the 2 are down to genes and bone structure.

You can then posit that the genes and bone structure of Negroids, Mongoloids and Caucasoids are also different from one another, just as all 3 of those are different to Neanderthal.

So, you've got a conundrum on your hands.

>if i pretend im right that makes me right
inb4 b-b-but NO U!!!1!11

Attached: 1529603165436.jpg (490x333, 34K)

No. Africans have been divergent from non-africans for about 50,000 years.

Not always true. Sometimes different species can produce fertile offspring. Coyotes and wolves can reproduce together and their offspring called coywolves are fertile.

I do agree with you tho. They clearly meant subspecies, not species. The only requirement for subspecies is you can reliably tell them apart.

sciencenews.org/article/hybrids-reveal-barriers-successful-mating-between-species

Italian Sparrows, you obtuse kike

What species is this?

Attached: army mutt.jpg (416x392, 80K)

I think it boils down to how we classify a species. A species is MADE THROUGH SEXUAL ISOLATIONISM. The "races" that we have are literal nodes/branches into new species. They WERE sexually isolated, but note anymore. So we aren't technically different species, we can still reproduce with each other, but our genes were spreading apart and mutating into new species... Thus races were born. That's why I'm 100% against race-mixing, it's erasing positive evolution.

Thats why they freak out. Their entire worldview falls into crisis.