- dtyler27106
- |
- Noble Legendary Member
Posted by: bergXX09
Posted by: dtyler27106
Posted by: FloodPsychologis
Posted by: Zayah117
Posted by: FloodPsychologis
They're a different species than us based on genetic distance, but funnily enough, they are more -blam!- sapiens than we are, we have small doses of Neanderthal in us, Africans don't.
Hey cool I didn't know that.
Genetic distance between British person and an African is 0.24, genetic distance between a human and a Neanderthal is 0.08, 3 times less. Genetic distance between a human and a -blam!- Erectus is 0.170, still smaller than between a British person and an African. The more you know :)
To those that don't believe what I'm saying:
Here. You are free to check out the studies.The people who recorded that data must have a time machine or something. How else would they accurately record the genetic makeup of a supposedly extinct species?
Also, those species didn't really go extinct to begin with; they just evolved into us. -blam!- erectus and "neanderthals" are just ancient humans, and it's politically incorrect to treat them as a different species.
Seriously, that study is bull -blam!-. All humans are the same species because, well, we're humans. We have the exact same physical structure and can reproduce with each other. Any other differences are too minor to conclude that we're different species.
German Shepherds aren't genetically closely related to wolves because they are dogs. Your logic.
Next you're going to tell us that gravity and evolution are bull-blam!-. You obviously know nothing of human races, hell, even African blood and muscles are different than others (way more sickle celled and they have more fast-twitch muscles).Why do you jump to the conclusion that I don't agree with science? Gravity is proven by laws of physics, and the theory of evolution has so much supporting evidence, it's as if it is a scientific law and not a theory at all, but that's irrelevant. I love science; I'm studying engineering. My problem is this study is mock science.
The example you gave is a stick man fallacy; that's not at all what I was saying. I never suggested that unlike species can't share similar genetics. In fact, it is the opposing argument that suggests that genetic makeup variation has some correlation as to whether two beings are defined as the same species. Two different species can have similar genetics and still be different species, while different groups within that species can have even more genetic variations and still be considered the same species. If anything, your helping my argument.