>>11936835>Okay then why mention these invalid definitions and how is it relevant in response to the anons calling out the idea that humans are one (sub)species ?Well if the word "species" is vague/meaningless then I'd say that's extremely relevant
>Even in America where people of different origins were living at the time of the colonisation in relatively similar numbers and in the same societies, populations of different ancestors didn't unify into one over 500 years> in relatively similar numbers and in the same societieslmao. Racial groups were literally segregated by law for most of American history.
>>11936842>Oh you're one of those guys, should have known.One of those guys who needs proof before dismissing an entire population of human beings? Yes. You are making a scientific claim, the burden of proof is on you.
>>11936850See above. Your eyes can't see genes, so don't blame them for the deception here. Intuition and "common sense" are not scientific evidence, and even "race realists" fail to agree on a consistent and rigorous definition of race. You can claim the truth is self evident to anyone who honestly observes their immediate environment, but a schizophrenic would say the same about the machine gods controlling people's minds with fluoride, just as an uneducated person would say the same about the world being flat, the Sun revolving around the Earth, or the existence of folk magic.
>>11936839Now THIS is actually really interesting. I'm going to have to look closely at their sources and data, since in my experience 9 times out of 10 these analyses grievously distort their citations, but I'll be interested to see if I can replicate their curve.
You, sir, are the reason I engage the idiots in these threads.
