>>12817240>There are no qualifications for calling something a different breed.And there are no genetic distance qualifications for calling someone a subspecies, what's your point? You are just upset I've turned things around and I'm using *your* criteria of genetic distance, under which it turns out that Humans are twice more similar to each other than dogs are.
>Regardless of this word being used, animals with greater genetic distance than humans are routinely classified under different names for scientific reasons. You keep using weasel words.
Different names for different reasons?
Why don't you say the actual definition?
Now, this is dishonest.
The classical definition of a subspecies is quite simple. A subspecies is "a subgroup of genetically distinct individuals that do not interbreed with each other in the wild".
Since Humans have been interbreeding with each other in the wild for thousands of years, includying paleolithic Indo-European migrations back into Africa, Humans are not a subspecies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34479905>"you can't call it race, you can't call it subspecies, you can't call it breeds, you can't call it haplogroups" but disagreeing about words with made up definitions will never change reality. You literally cannot call them a subspecies for the reason outlined above. I'm fine with the terms race and haplogroups so I don't know who you are crying about, /pol/schizo.
>Animals with shorter genetic distance are classified differentlyUnlike subspecies, which has an actual definition outlined above, there's no definition for a species that taxonomists agree upon.
>humans can be classified in different groups regardless of how you want these groups to be calledlol stop strawmanning and playing the victim faggot.
Race and ethnic groups are fine definitions, you are the schizo making these threads over and over when race and ethnic group are already recognized and accepted terms.
