>>13761445>Im posting on 4chan not writing for a journalRefraining from saying bullshit is good on 4chan too. It's fine to lack knowledge, but not to pretend you know something when you don't.
>My more genral point was about the genetic uniformity of our species>homo sapiens are very genetically uniform species especially when compared to other animals And what's your source for that ? Is it
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2012-03-02-chimps-show-much-greater-genetic-diversity-humans ?
Pic related is the data from the study on which the article is based (
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002504#pgen-1002504-t002).
Indeed there is more difference among the different *subspecies* of chimps than there is among the different *groups* of humans. But when you look at it more closely you notice that it's the P. t.Verus subspecies that is apart. The two others, Troglodytes and Elliotti, show values of differenciation that are similar to those of the three human groups ! And they're subspecies ! so why shouldn't the human groups be different subspecies again ?
And the chimp within-subspecies values are similar to the human within-groups values.
But more generally your point is illogical. You're saying that some species are more diverse than ours, so our diversity is negligible ? that doesn't follow at all.
As for the superficiality of our physical differences, that's just, like, your opinion.
>points to within group variation being the major proportion of variation and with between group variation being less significant. Perhaps you have papers to the contrary?I don't because it's true, like it undoubtly is for wolves. But it's a fallacy to argue that this is relevant. Lewontin's fallacy.
>When race is already a concept and is no less descriptive than sub-species.Race is a non-scientific concept wtih a definition muddled by centuries of use and misuse. Subspecies is more meaningful.
