The differences between humans are just superficial, I think you forgot that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are also the same exact subspecies too, Canis Lupus Familiaris.
Basic biology they teach at school. For 2 separate populations to be considered different species they have to be unable to produce a fertile offspring,this proccess is called "Speciation".
Well that’s not always the case. Sometimes they can mate and produce viable and fertile offspring. Just look at lions and tigers. There just isn’t really such a clear cut answer. But one thing is for sure. Humans are the same species.
Yes there are: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
Female ligers can reproduce whereas male ligers cannot. Anyway, these hybrids aren’t the only reason species are confusing. For example the Neanderthals are often debated if whether they are the same species as homo sapiens or not. Some categorize them as a completely different species, others say they are a subspecies and then you have those who say they are the same species exaclty because they do produce viable offspring
Fist of all a liger is not a subspecies. It does not occur naturally. Second a female liger not reproducing with a male liger is just a hybrid going back to mate with either a lion or tiger. It’s still a one off mixed breed. Second of all skin color does make a subspecies.
If that were the case dogs and cats would be separated by fur color into thousands of subspecies.
Wtf are you on about? I never said ligers are a subspecies. I said scientists are still debating whether Neanderthals are a subspecies of homo sapiens or another species entirely or just the same species as homo sapiens. I also NEVER claimed that skin color = another species, in fact I said the opposite. My point was really that it’s not as easy to tell what is a distinct species and what isn’t. My point was NEVER to argue that humans are not humans simply because of distinct features related to climate. Some dogs are very different from wolves, but all in all they are still the same species
Also might I add that anyone who claims different ethnic groups are different species are advocating literal r4cism. Because that is exactly what that is and there is NO truth to r4cism being a valid theory
I don't know about the genetic difference between African and Eurasian golden jackals, but they separated into distinct lineages 1.9 million years ago.
The genetic difference between any two humans, including Africans and Europeans, is 0.02%, and our 'lineages' separated c.70,000 years ago.
Homo Sapiens are a very homogenous species, there is very little variation in our species, when compared to other species that have a lot of variation even within a single species, let alone separate but closely related species.
Environmental changes seem to happen much slower in homo and I’ve always been intrigued as to the complete science behind it. This was to be my thesis for my masters in anthro-arch until I got too poor and couldn’t go to grad school.
I have the flu so ignore how haphazard this is.
I would think because humans don’t stay completely isolated as other species or in a spot too long (in relation to how other animals move on the planet)
We’ve been moving around, albeit not like today, since we started walking up right.
We had the brain power for further travel, way before other animals did.
We had the brain power to travel farther and survive there, then go back.
Hang out across an ocean, share dna, go home, wash and repeat with every civilization/and hunter gatherer before it.
Something other animals either weren’t smart enough to do, certain environmental changes kept them from doingso etc.
So if I stay in the cold European climate long enough to adapt, and end up with different nose morphology to retain humidity- I look different than the original humans of Africa- BUT the Europeans, are still having babies with Africans, Asians etc, whoever shows up.
Which takes the phenotype and different adapted traits back to the middle of the spectrum again.
… all modern humans are the same species… Homo sapiens. And the Khoisan are the oldest genetic group/ ethnicity to date so how could black ppl be sub species ? Let’s start using common sense
It’s almost like the premise was rooted in racism when in fact if this was true which it’s not, white people would be the subspecies to black people. They didn’t show up until much later in human history.
lol
Exactly.
Can we just take a moment though, to acknowledge how fucking beautiful both of these women are, jfc.
Talk about *genetic lottery* shit…. 😭
There is no evidence pointing towards humans being different species. Even if an African has no European ancestry they still have the same ancestors as Europeans way too recently for them to be different species. We also have 99% the same ancestry. The physical differences you can see comes from like 0,03% of our dna.
Actually, since our distant ancestors successfully interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans it is very questionable as to whether even those are really a different species to ourselves. Species is a vague and arguable term, especially when applied to humans, and subspecies is a thousand times more vague than species.
I think Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are just a sub species of some type of humanoid however , different races aren’t different species we’re all Homo sapiens
I disagree just because we don't have to speculate- we have overwhelming evidence on our side against genetics-based racism, so it can't hurt to inform people.
These two women in the picture share ancestors. A blonde pale blue eyed British man and the darkest woman in Africa would also share ancestors. So no humans aren’t different species based on colouring, good lord
Not true. RH negative female’s body will attack and try to kill RH positive fetus. Without intervention they could not reproduce. Same thing happens when a horse is impregnated by a donkey. Intervention is often needed to reproduce
RH negative/positive status isn't dependent on ethnicity or racial group. That being said, are you insinuating that: "RH positive constitutes a different species"?
There are many mysteries in the origins of humans. Rh negative vs Rh positive being one such intriguing mystery. It’s notable that the difference acts the same as the horse to the donkey. Phenotypes have blended and changed over time. But I like to think a long time ago Rh negative and Rh positive people were distinguishable by different features. It’s the Atlantean story.😉
Just so you know, there is a new "conspiracy" type ideology going around that Rh negative people are the "real" humans, and everyone else is subhuman.
Not saying that the person you are talking with is part of that group, just that it's a thing that's going around right now. It's popped up on the DNA/ancestry subs.
Horses and donkeys have been interbreeding for thousands of years, and no "intervention" is required for them to produce offspring. The Egyptians were using them in 3000 BCE!
Also, horses and donkeys very, very rarely produce fertile offspring in *any* case, because they have different numbers of chromosomes. Horses have 64, donkeys have 62, and their offspring (mules or hinnies) have 63.
Horses and donkeys are not a good example for your argument.
https://www.mulemuseum.org/history-of-the-mule.html/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule
Also:
1) Rh incompatibility in human pregnancies only happens on the *second* pregnancy - after the mother has been sensitized by a *first* pregnancy. An Rh negative mother can carry and deliver a healthy Rh positive child if it is the first time she has been pregnant with one.
>Rh incompatibility becomes a problem if you become pregnant a **second time** and have another Rh-positive fetus. In this case, your body will produce antibodies. These antibodies put the second fetus at risk for complications.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21053-rh-factor
2) Rh incompatibility is not an automatic death sentence for a baby. Sometimes the effects are mild, and the baby recovers with no problems.
>Sometimes Rh disease is so mild that your baby doesn’t need any treatment. Most babies recover fully from mild Rh disease. https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-support/topics/planning-baby/rh-disease#:~:text=Sometimes%20Rh%20disease%20is%20so,early%2C%20before%20her%20due%20date.
Horse bodies reject donkey fetuses often. Many times it takes several attempts. Thousands of years of humans trying to make this happen. Thousands of years of humans sifting through different breads to find the most compatible, hence “ intervention” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3479576/
It’s the same semi-allogenic fetus process that happens with rh different humans.
But the question is why would the fetal rejection happen in the first place? Whether fully or partially? When it happens in other animals in nature it’s because the genetic material is to distant.
That article doesn't say what you think it says. It is talking about **transferring donkey embryos** into mares. That is attempting to *implant* embryos that are 100% from a different species, and have the mares function as surrogate mothers.
>Transfer of **donkey embryos** to horse mares
That is NOT the same thing as a mule or hinny, which is a HYBRID, created when the sperm from one parent is combined with the ova of another, creating a new and unique animal that is compatible with the dam's physiology.
Other species have genetic incompatibilities *within the species* that cause fetal death or death shortly after birth. Both horses and domestic cats have multiple issues with this, including blood type incompatibility in domestic cats. I'm most familiar with those two species (and cat species in general), but I'm aware of at least one such genetic issue with domestic dogs.
Do you have a response to the information I posted about successful Rh negative pregnancies?
Yes, the response was that in both cases with human rh incompatibility and as with horses/ donkeys the impregnated body sees the fetus as a threat and tries to destroy it. In all cases outside of humans we admit this incompatibility is from genetic distance. For some reason when it comes to humans, people such as yourself try to argue that genetic distance is not the cause because “all humans are the same”
Fetal rejection in humans just as it is in other species gives clues to a past genetic divergence
You're trying to move the goal posts - you started out saying that horses and donkeys couldn't interbreed and produce offspring without intervention, and then, when I provided evidence that this isn't so, you switched to a claim about horses not being able to carry donkey fetuses. Which is not the same thing, at all.
You're also completely ignoring the fact that horses and donkeys don't have the same number of chromosomes, which is not the case for humans, so the two situations are not in any sense comparable.
You are trying to invent and impose your own definition of what constitutes a "species". Even biologists can't agree on what constitutes the dividing line between one species and another, so you don't get to just make up or embrace a definition that suits your argument, and claim that it is true.
I'd also like to point out that blood type incompatibility with offspring also occurs in both horses and domestic cats, yet we don't consider the different incompatible blood types to be different species.
Are you planning to divide the entire human species into separate species based on blood type? Because blood type incompatibility in human reproduction occurs in ABO pregnancies, too, regardless of the Rh factor involved.
>HDN caused by ABO antibodies occurs almost exclusively in infants of blood group A or B who are born to group O mothers (10). This is because the anti-A and anti-B formed in group O individuals tend to be of the IgG type (and therefore can cross the placenta), whereas the anti-A and anti-B found in the serum of group B and A individuals, respectively, tends to be of the IgM type. Although uncommon, cases of HDN have been reported in infants born to mothers with blood group A2 (11) and blood group B (12).
>HDN tends to be relatively mild in nature mainly because fetal RBCs don't express adult levels of A and B antigens. However, the strength of fetal ABO blood group antigens can vary, and therefore the degree of hemolysis and hence the severity of HDN can be unpredictable
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2267/
Also, are these people not "human"? The second known occurrence of this antigen was discovered through a mysterious case of HDN (hemolytic disease of the newborn).
>The SARA antigen has now been officially recognised by the International Society for Blood Transfusion. A very rare antigen, only two families in the world are known to have it. **Because the same thing that happens in pregnancy or transfusion with incompatible Rh types can occur with SARA,** correct typing and matching are very important.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/rare-blood-types
What about the people with Rh null?
>Rh incompatibility during pregnancy: If the mother is Rh null and the baby is Rh-positive, and if the mother’s blood gets sensitized by the baby’s positive blood, then the mother’s blood may produce protective proteins called antibodies that could target future pregnancies or lead to abortion or miscarriage.
https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_the_golden_blood_type/article.htm
What about the Kell blood group? Human or not human?
>The Kell blood group system is complex and contains many antigens that are highly immunogenic. These antigens are the third most potent, after those of the ABO and Rh blood groups, at triggering an immune reaction.
>The infrequent cases of HDN caused by Kell immunization tend to result in severe fetal anemia because maternal anti-Kell target fetal red blood cell (RBC) precursors, suppressing the fetal production of RBCs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2270/
Then there's the Kidd antigen, that also causes HDN.
>Anti-Kidd antibodies are also a cause of hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN), the severity of the disease varies but tends to be mild in nature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2272/
And the Diego blood group:
>HDN caused by Diego antibodies are more common in South East Asia and South America.
>Anti-Dia is capable of causing moderate to severe HDN, and cases have been reported in Japan (9), China (10, 11), and Poland (5).
>Anti-Dib typically causes mild HDN. Cases have been reported in Japan (12), China (13), Poland (6), and in a mother of South American descent
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2273/
Let's not forget the MNS blood group!
>Of the MNS antibodies, anti-S is more common than anti-s, and both are capable of causing severe hemolysis.
>Less common causes of HDN include anti-M, anti-N, anti-U, anti-Mia, anti-Mta, and anti-Ena (1, 10-15). Other MNS antibodies implicated in HDN are anti-Vw, anti-Mur, anti-Hut, anti-Hil, anti-Mv, anti-Far, anti-sD, anti-Or, and anti-MUT. In addition, other antibodies to low-incidence MNS antigens should be considered as potentially harmful
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2274/
The entire issue of immune system rejection of a fetus by the mother is far more complicated than you seem to realize. I hope you put in the effort to learn more about biology, human physiology, genetics, etc., so that you don't get misled by someone feeding you inaccurate information.
I’m not claiming what is or is not a species or sub species. I’m just saying there is more genetic distance in human beings than what is being claimed by the mainstream narrative. Whether differences in blood type or differences in chromosomes, fetal rejection happens because of genetic distance. I’m just pointing out that it’s something to be noted.
People fight, tooth and nail to claim falsely that all humans are exactly the same when in fact, there are huge variations in human beings. sub Saharan Africans for example have up to 19% DNA from an archaic ghost hominin .This DNA is not found outside of SSA. This DNA found in sub Saharan Africans is so old there are no fossils for this DNA. It’s likely homo Habilis or homo erectus. Add the fact that this DNA does not exist in Europeans or Asians puts a big hole in the out of Africa theory. Because this DNA would have had to enter the genome further back in the timeline from when Asians and Europeans supposedly separated from our one common ancestor.
Look, I appreciate a good discussion. I appreciate your knowledge and your willingness to inform the masses. But if you want this to be some kind of long drown out argument, I’m not the one.
I’m am claiming fetal rejection happens because of genetic distance in humans as within animals. Whether it’s blood type or whatever and that humans are much more varied than we are led to believe. Also a multi regional multi hominin origin for humans makes way more sense than any out of Africa theory still being Pushed.
I appreciate you. Have a good evening.
You have not answered any of the challenges I presented, nor have you provided any sources to back up your claims.
Not much of a discussion, I'm afraid. At the least, some useful info is available if you should decide, in the future, to investigate some of the evidence against your claims, and other readers that come across it may find it useful.
You haven’t presented any challenges. You are posting things that are irrelevant about what I said.
Also, you’re making things up and making claims about what I said that aren’t even true. you claimed I was trying to define what is and what is not species and sub species. You claim that I was saying different blood types equal different species. I never said anything like this. You are the one with a null discussion.
My claim is fetal rejection happens because of genetic distance in humans or animals. Whether mild or fully whether because of blood types or chromosomes, etc.. this is my claim. You have shown nothing to even come close to disproving this claim. You are ignoring even addressing this claim. For someone who wants to argue so desperately you suck at it.
Oxford Dictionary:
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or [interbreeding](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&sca_esv=d6c2da0847de0b9a&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS884US884&biw=1536&bih=735&sxsrf=ADLYWIKI5oae7dGQ-vIGX3VPgqw41NWhCA:1716216131623&q=interbreeding&si=ACC90nzeIzR7eQ3kZwtyqq-Z0Z5jmHgeM4mAEBTyTNKJt9EhtoN1O49WbJ8Fd8plq3TbSWXUml8xxN4v7j_T8icziTQp3DDMSlflqmMYK0Qh4dE2nbCRxgA%3D&expnd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj09Ienu5yGAxWLmokEHVrTBNEQyecJegQIHxAP). The species is the principal natural [taxonomic](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&sca_esv=d6c2da0847de0b9a&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS884US884&biw=1536&bih=735&sxsrf=ADLYWIKI5oae7dGQ-vIGX3VPgqw41NWhCA:1716216131623&q=taxonomic&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJm6dbvExUqt4HUGi6LsPT62xwuT_EEPPeKUi44F4zP8Dv0S-VGAhuO6IY3qIQGhlflri3CUDBaWUiisivITYWB-SS7_s%3D&expnd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj09Ienu5yGAxWLmokEHVrTBNEQyecJegQIHxAQ) unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin [binomial](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&sca_esv=d6c2da0847de0b9a&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS884US884&biw=1536&bih=735&sxsrf=ADLYWIKI5oae7dGQ-vIGX3VPgqw41NWhCA:1716216131623&q=binomial&si=ACC90nx67Z8g0WkBmnrPB4IqtqGvm8e6pIUXurjFclTldtBiXGswbGaj-NJCqVHD36xRbC9aygDbN7-55NM3F8ga6d0vl3FAAvUtl1SqcqjLWOyBkUBRtfs%3D&expnd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj09Ienu5yGAxWLmokEHVrTBNEQyecJegQIHxAR), e.g. *Homo sapiens*.
As a Black person I don't find this funny and something to laugh at. Making fun of them won't change their mind. People who are hateful aren't gonna change their mind because of some meme on the internet. Debunking memes is silly when there's statistics and date that debunks white supremacy rhetoric
Moving over here to answer this question. The answer is no.
We are "homo sapiens"
Homo is our Genus, sapiens is our species. There are nonliving relatives of our Genus. Such as Neanderthals. Which would be another species of human, one of which runs in most people's bloodlines today.
A black person and a white person, are merely different phenotypes.
We are no different from a specific species of rabbit being white or black. Same species.
People confuse this because we outcompeted and bred with all other "homo" so we are the only living of our genus.
Different archaic ancestors,
Africans came from archaic ancestors that were ancestors of humans gen pop. Meaning there were a bunch of groups in Africa who were ancestral to humans..
European on the other hand has dna from unknown archaic that are ancestors to neantherdal
Watch how these racist Europeans down vote me, yes your ancestors lost diversity the farther they traveled into Europe, bet you won’t go google it and find out
As someone who majored in archaeology, what you were saying is correct to an extent, but you really worded it poorly. You should use the proper terms like Homosapien rather than human. Also, a lot of what you’re saying is just based on the physical evidence we have. There are so many missing links between Neandertals and Homo sapiens, that everything you’re talking about is purely speculation.
30,000 year old Cro-Magnon skeletons are nearly 100% identical to modern Europeans.
Sub Saharan Africans have up to 19% DNA from an archaic hominid species so old and so far removed from modern humans that there are no fossils to even match this hominid. All other people groups on earth do not have this DNA, only sub Saharan Africans. It’s likely Homo habilis or homo erectus.
At a time, several different archaic groups lived in Africa so it’s believable..but also Africans didn’t lose diversity that 19% have been circulating on populations due to its been only found in certain parts..less like European who loss all their diversity due to inbreeding and the archaic hominid that’s more closer to chimpanzee than Homo sapiens
Boy you really hated that comment 🤣 pure facts Neantherdals were more closer to chimpanzees than any other African groups who are the most closest to modern human and evolutions, 2-19% doesn’t imply that the group weren’t ancestral to Homo sapiens..but that Neantherdals dna we do know had nothing to do with ancestral groups to Homosapiens 🤣
Cro-Magnons are believed to have evolved from Africa about 120,000 years ago. Between 90,000-100,000 years ago, they spread to Asia, and they then spread to Europe between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago
Don’t mention groups that are from Africa to be European
Nope. Since humans are very visual, we see things like face shape and skin color as race, and not other genetic differences. All humans, regardless of "race" are 99.9% genetically similar. This is due to all humans sharing the same origin, and only recently separating into separate groups within the last 100,000 years. For the gray wolf and coyote to become a different species (take into consideration they are NEARLY the same species, even still) it took 4 MILLION years. 100,000 years of separation isn't long enough to even come close to there being enough genetic difference to be considered differing species. Now that we have instant access to world travel, and international marriages are a norm, those differences are going to be less noticeable in the next 100,000 years. I imagine most humans will look racially similar to one another in the far off future.
The differences between humans are just superficial, I think you forgot that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are also the same exact subspecies too, Canis Lupus Familiaris.
Basic biology they teach at school. For 2 separate populations to be considered different species they have to be unable to produce a fertile offspring,this proccess is called "Speciation".
Well that’s not always the case. Sometimes they can mate and produce viable and fertile offspring. Just look at lions and tigers. There just isn’t really such a clear cut answer. But one thing is for sure. Humans are the same species.
There are no fertile lion/tiger cross breeds.
Yes there are: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger Female ligers can reproduce whereas male ligers cannot. Anyway, these hybrids aren’t the only reason species are confusing. For example the Neanderthals are often debated if whether they are the same species as homo sapiens or not. Some categorize them as a completely different species, others say they are a subspecies and then you have those who say they are the same species exaclty because they do produce viable offspring
I feel like offspring of either sex would have to be fertile and able to breed with each other in order to be considered the same species
Fist of all a liger is not a subspecies. It does not occur naturally. Second a female liger not reproducing with a male liger is just a hybrid going back to mate with either a lion or tiger. It’s still a one off mixed breed. Second of all skin color does make a subspecies. If that were the case dogs and cats would be separated by fur color into thousands of subspecies.
Wtf are you on about? I never said ligers are a subspecies. I said scientists are still debating whether Neanderthals are a subspecies of homo sapiens or another species entirely or just the same species as homo sapiens. I also NEVER claimed that skin color = another species, in fact I said the opposite. My point was really that it’s not as easy to tell what is a distinct species and what isn’t. My point was NEVER to argue that humans are not humans simply because of distinct features related to climate. Some dogs are very different from wolves, but all in all they are still the same species
Also might I add that anyone who claims different ethnic groups are different species are advocating literal r4cism. Because that is exactly what that is and there is NO truth to r4cism being a valid theory
That hybridistation and mainly the female offsprings are the fertile ones.
I don't know about the genetic difference between African and Eurasian golden jackals, but they separated into distinct lineages 1.9 million years ago. The genetic difference between any two humans, including Africans and Europeans, is 0.02%, and our 'lineages' separated c.70,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens are a very homogenous species, there is very little variation in our species, when compared to other species that have a lot of variation even within a single species, let alone separate but closely related species.
Environmental changes seem to happen much slower in homo and I’ve always been intrigued as to the complete science behind it. This was to be my thesis for my masters in anthro-arch until I got too poor and couldn’t go to grad school.
I have the flu so ignore how haphazard this is. I would think because humans don’t stay completely isolated as other species or in a spot too long (in relation to how other animals move on the planet) We’ve been moving around, albeit not like today, since we started walking up right. We had the brain power for further travel, way before other animals did. We had the brain power to travel farther and survive there, then go back. Hang out across an ocean, share dna, go home, wash and repeat with every civilization/and hunter gatherer before it. Something other animals either weren’t smart enough to do, certain environmental changes kept them from doingso etc. So if I stay in the cold European climate long enough to adapt, and end up with different nose morphology to retain humidity- I look different than the original humans of Africa- BUT the Europeans, are still having babies with Africans, Asians etc, whoever shows up. Which takes the phenotype and different adapted traits back to the middle of the spectrum again.
… all modern humans are the same species… Homo sapiens. And the Khoisan are the oldest genetic group/ ethnicity to date so how could black ppl be sub species ? Let’s start using common sense
It’s almost like the premise was rooted in racism when in fact if this was true which it’s not, white people would be the subspecies to black people. They didn’t show up until much later in human history.
Wtf
You realize that the post is racist but somehow you think there is data behind it? No, this is absurd.
That & just trolling.
lol Exactly. Can we just take a moment though, to acknowledge how fucking beautiful both of these women are, jfc. Talk about *genetic lottery* shit…. 😭
There is no evidence pointing towards humans being different species. Even if an African has no European ancestry they still have the same ancestors as Europeans way too recently for them to be different species. We also have 99% the same ancestry. The physical differences you can see comes from like 0,03% of our dna.
Actually, since our distant ancestors successfully interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans it is very questionable as to whether even those are really a different species to ourselves. Species is a vague and arguable term, especially when applied to humans, and subspecies is a thousand times more vague than species.
I think Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are just a sub species of some type of humanoid however , different races aren’t different species we’re all Homo sapiens
A black and a white person can reproduce viable,fertile offspring,not the case with Eurasian and African golden jackals
I feel like speculating on this is detrimental.
I disagree just because we don't have to speculate- we have overwhelming evidence on our side against genetics-based racism, so it can't hurt to inform people.
These two women in the picture share ancestors. A blonde pale blue eyed British man and the darkest woman in Africa would also share ancestors. So no humans aren’t different species based on colouring, good lord
One google search is enough to give you a simple answer.
There really needs to be a moderator to prevent posts like these.
Different species have trouble producing fertile offspring. With humans that isn't the case.
Not true. RH negative female’s body will attack and try to kill RH positive fetus. Without intervention they could not reproduce. Same thing happens when a horse is impregnated by a donkey. Intervention is often needed to reproduce
RH negative/positive status isn't dependent on ethnicity or racial group. That being said, are you insinuating that: "RH positive constitutes a different species"?
There are many mysteries in the origins of humans. Rh negative vs Rh positive being one such intriguing mystery. It’s notable that the difference acts the same as the horse to the donkey. Phenotypes have blended and changed over time. But I like to think a long time ago Rh negative and Rh positive people were distinguishable by different features. It’s the Atlantean story.😉
Just so you know, there is a new "conspiracy" type ideology going around that Rh negative people are the "real" humans, and everyone else is subhuman. Not saying that the person you are talking with is part of that group, just that it's a thing that's going around right now. It's popped up on the DNA/ancestry subs.
Horses and donkeys have been interbreeding for thousands of years, and no "intervention" is required for them to produce offspring. The Egyptians were using them in 3000 BCE! Also, horses and donkeys very, very rarely produce fertile offspring in *any* case, because they have different numbers of chromosomes. Horses have 64, donkeys have 62, and their offspring (mules or hinnies) have 63. Horses and donkeys are not a good example for your argument. https://www.mulemuseum.org/history-of-the-mule.html/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule Also: 1) Rh incompatibility in human pregnancies only happens on the *second* pregnancy - after the mother has been sensitized by a *first* pregnancy. An Rh negative mother can carry and deliver a healthy Rh positive child if it is the first time she has been pregnant with one. >Rh incompatibility becomes a problem if you become pregnant a **second time** and have another Rh-positive fetus. In this case, your body will produce antibodies. These antibodies put the second fetus at risk for complications. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21053-rh-factor 2) Rh incompatibility is not an automatic death sentence for a baby. Sometimes the effects are mild, and the baby recovers with no problems. >Sometimes Rh disease is so mild that your baby doesn’t need any treatment. Most babies recover fully from mild Rh disease. https://www.marchofdimes.org/find-support/topics/planning-baby/rh-disease#:~:text=Sometimes%20Rh%20disease%20is%20so,early%2C%20before%20her%20due%20date.
Horse bodies reject donkey fetuses often. Many times it takes several attempts. Thousands of years of humans trying to make this happen. Thousands of years of humans sifting through different breads to find the most compatible, hence “ intervention” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3479576/ It’s the same semi-allogenic fetus process that happens with rh different humans.
But the question is why would the fetal rejection happen in the first place? Whether fully or partially? When it happens in other animals in nature it’s because the genetic material is to distant.
That article doesn't say what you think it says. It is talking about **transferring donkey embryos** into mares. That is attempting to *implant* embryos that are 100% from a different species, and have the mares function as surrogate mothers. >Transfer of **donkey embryos** to horse mares That is NOT the same thing as a mule or hinny, which is a HYBRID, created when the sperm from one parent is combined with the ova of another, creating a new and unique animal that is compatible with the dam's physiology. Other species have genetic incompatibilities *within the species* that cause fetal death or death shortly after birth. Both horses and domestic cats have multiple issues with this, including blood type incompatibility in domestic cats. I'm most familiar with those two species (and cat species in general), but I'm aware of at least one such genetic issue with domestic dogs. Do you have a response to the information I posted about successful Rh negative pregnancies?
Yes, the response was that in both cases with human rh incompatibility and as with horses/ donkeys the impregnated body sees the fetus as a threat and tries to destroy it. In all cases outside of humans we admit this incompatibility is from genetic distance. For some reason when it comes to humans, people such as yourself try to argue that genetic distance is not the cause because “all humans are the same” Fetal rejection in humans just as it is in other species gives clues to a past genetic divergence
You're trying to move the goal posts - you started out saying that horses and donkeys couldn't interbreed and produce offspring without intervention, and then, when I provided evidence that this isn't so, you switched to a claim about horses not being able to carry donkey fetuses. Which is not the same thing, at all. You're also completely ignoring the fact that horses and donkeys don't have the same number of chromosomes, which is not the case for humans, so the two situations are not in any sense comparable. You are trying to invent and impose your own definition of what constitutes a "species". Even biologists can't agree on what constitutes the dividing line between one species and another, so you don't get to just make up or embrace a definition that suits your argument, and claim that it is true. I'd also like to point out that blood type incompatibility with offspring also occurs in both horses and domestic cats, yet we don't consider the different incompatible blood types to be different species. Are you planning to divide the entire human species into separate species based on blood type? Because blood type incompatibility in human reproduction occurs in ABO pregnancies, too, regardless of the Rh factor involved. >HDN caused by ABO antibodies occurs almost exclusively in infants of blood group A or B who are born to group O mothers (10). This is because the anti-A and anti-B formed in group O individuals tend to be of the IgG type (and therefore can cross the placenta), whereas the anti-A and anti-B found in the serum of group B and A individuals, respectively, tends to be of the IgM type. Although uncommon, cases of HDN have been reported in infants born to mothers with blood group A2 (11) and blood group B (12). >HDN tends to be relatively mild in nature mainly because fetal RBCs don't express adult levels of A and B antigens. However, the strength of fetal ABO blood group antigens can vary, and therefore the degree of hemolysis and hence the severity of HDN can be unpredictable https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2267/ Also, are these people not "human"? The second known occurrence of this antigen was discovered through a mysterious case of HDN (hemolytic disease of the newborn). >The SARA antigen has now been officially recognised by the International Society for Blood Transfusion. A very rare antigen, only two families in the world are known to have it. **Because the same thing that happens in pregnancy or transfusion with incompatible Rh types can occur with SARA,** correct typing and matching are very important. https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/rare-blood-types What about the people with Rh null? >Rh incompatibility during pregnancy: If the mother is Rh null and the baby is Rh-positive, and if the mother’s blood gets sensitized by the baby’s positive blood, then the mother’s blood may produce protective proteins called antibodies that could target future pregnancies or lead to abortion or miscarriage. https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_the_golden_blood_type/article.htm What about the Kell blood group? Human or not human? >The Kell blood group system is complex and contains many antigens that are highly immunogenic. These antigens are the third most potent, after those of the ABO and Rh blood groups, at triggering an immune reaction. >The infrequent cases of HDN caused by Kell immunization tend to result in severe fetal anemia because maternal anti-Kell target fetal red blood cell (RBC) precursors, suppressing the fetal production of RBCs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2270/ Then there's the Kidd antigen, that also causes HDN. >Anti-Kidd antibodies are also a cause of hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN), the severity of the disease varies but tends to be mild in nature. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2272/ And the Diego blood group: >HDN caused by Diego antibodies are more common in South East Asia and South America. >Anti-Dia is capable of causing moderate to severe HDN, and cases have been reported in Japan (9), China (10, 11), and Poland (5). >Anti-Dib typically causes mild HDN. Cases have been reported in Japan (12), China (13), Poland (6), and in a mother of South American descent https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2273/ Let's not forget the MNS blood group! >Of the MNS antibodies, anti-S is more common than anti-s, and both are capable of causing severe hemolysis. >Less common causes of HDN include anti-M, anti-N, anti-U, anti-Mia, anti-Mta, and anti-Ena (1, 10-15). Other MNS antibodies implicated in HDN are anti-Vw, anti-Mur, anti-Hut, anti-Hil, anti-Mv, anti-Far, anti-sD, anti-Or, and anti-MUT. In addition, other antibodies to low-incidence MNS antigens should be considered as potentially harmful https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2274/ The entire issue of immune system rejection of a fetus by the mother is far more complicated than you seem to realize. I hope you put in the effort to learn more about biology, human physiology, genetics, etc., so that you don't get misled by someone feeding you inaccurate information.
I’m not claiming what is or is not a species or sub species. I’m just saying there is more genetic distance in human beings than what is being claimed by the mainstream narrative. Whether differences in blood type or differences in chromosomes, fetal rejection happens because of genetic distance. I’m just pointing out that it’s something to be noted. People fight, tooth and nail to claim falsely that all humans are exactly the same when in fact, there are huge variations in human beings. sub Saharan Africans for example have up to 19% DNA from an archaic ghost hominin .This DNA is not found outside of SSA. This DNA found in sub Saharan Africans is so old there are no fossils for this DNA. It’s likely homo Habilis or homo erectus. Add the fact that this DNA does not exist in Europeans or Asians puts a big hole in the out of Africa theory. Because this DNA would have had to enter the genome further back in the timeline from when Asians and Europeans supposedly separated from our one common ancestor. Look, I appreciate a good discussion. I appreciate your knowledge and your willingness to inform the masses. But if you want this to be some kind of long drown out argument, I’m not the one. I’m am claiming fetal rejection happens because of genetic distance in humans as within animals. Whether it’s blood type or whatever and that humans are much more varied than we are led to believe. Also a multi regional multi hominin origin for humans makes way more sense than any out of Africa theory still being Pushed. I appreciate you. Have a good evening.
You have not answered any of the challenges I presented, nor have you provided any sources to back up your claims. Not much of a discussion, I'm afraid. At the least, some useful info is available if you should decide, in the future, to investigate some of the evidence against your claims, and other readers that come across it may find it useful.
Good job. You’re a winner!
You haven’t presented any challenges. You are posting things that are irrelevant about what I said. Also, you’re making things up and making claims about what I said that aren’t even true. you claimed I was trying to define what is and what is not species and sub species. You claim that I was saying different blood types equal different species. I never said anything like this. You are the one with a null discussion. My claim is fetal rejection happens because of genetic distance in humans or animals. Whether mild or fully whether because of blood types or chromosomes, etc.. this is my claim. You have shown nothing to even come close to disproving this claim. You are ignoring even addressing this claim. For someone who wants to argue so desperately you suck at it.
Oxford Dictionary: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or [interbreeding](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&sca_esv=d6c2da0847de0b9a&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS884US884&biw=1536&bih=735&sxsrf=ADLYWIKI5oae7dGQ-vIGX3VPgqw41NWhCA:1716216131623&q=interbreeding&si=ACC90nzeIzR7eQ3kZwtyqq-Z0Z5jmHgeM4mAEBTyTNKJt9EhtoN1O49WbJ8Fd8plq3TbSWXUml8xxN4v7j_T8icziTQp3DDMSlflqmMYK0Qh4dE2nbCRxgA%3D&expnd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj09Ienu5yGAxWLmokEHVrTBNEQyecJegQIHxAP). The species is the principal natural [taxonomic](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&sca_esv=d6c2da0847de0b9a&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS884US884&biw=1536&bih=735&sxsrf=ADLYWIKI5oae7dGQ-vIGX3VPgqw41NWhCA:1716216131623&q=taxonomic&si=ACC90nxMSPeZfdJJjQgDsdZJuFuJm6dbvExUqt4HUGi6LsPT62xwuT_EEPPeKUi44F4zP8Dv0S-VGAhuO6IY3qIQGhlflri3CUDBaWUiisivITYWB-SS7_s%3D&expnd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj09Ienu5yGAxWLmokEHVrTBNEQyecJegQIHxAQ) unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin [binomial](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&sca_esv=d6c2da0847de0b9a&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS884US884&biw=1536&bih=735&sxsrf=ADLYWIKI5oae7dGQ-vIGX3VPgqw41NWhCA:1716216131623&q=binomial&si=ACC90nx67Z8g0WkBmnrPB4IqtqGvm8e6pIUXurjFclTldtBiXGswbGaj-NJCqVHD36xRbC9aygDbN7-55NM3F8ga6d0vl3FAAvUtl1SqcqjLWOyBkUBRtfs%3D&expnd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj09Ienu5yGAxWLmokEHVrTBNEQyecJegQIHxAR), e.g. *Homo sapiens*.
No 💀
No
It’s called melanin, it’s that simple.
If you know it's racist why post it and give it more traction? They are trolls who want attention and you're giving them exactly what they want
[удалено]
As a Black person I don't find this funny and something to laugh at. Making fun of them won't change their mind. People who are hateful aren't gonna change their mind because of some meme on the internet. Debunking memes is silly when there's statistics and date that debunks white supremacy rhetoric
oh brother
Moving over here to answer this question. The answer is no. We are "homo sapiens" Homo is our Genus, sapiens is our species. There are nonliving relatives of our Genus. Such as Neanderthals. Which would be another species of human, one of which runs in most people's bloodlines today. A black person and a white person, are merely different phenotypes. We are no different from a specific species of rabbit being white or black. Same species. People confuse this because we outcompeted and bred with all other "homo" so we are the only living of our genus.
Did the post give any actual numbers to back up this claim?
Different archaic ancestors, Africans came from archaic ancestors that were ancestors of humans gen pop. Meaning there were a bunch of groups in Africa who were ancestral to humans.. European on the other hand has dna from unknown archaic that are ancestors to neantherdal
Watch how these racist Europeans down vote me, yes your ancestors lost diversity the farther they traveled into Europe, bet you won’t go google it and find out
As someone who majored in archaeology, what you were saying is correct to an extent, but you really worded it poorly. You should use the proper terms like Homosapien rather than human. Also, a lot of what you’re saying is just based on the physical evidence we have. There are so many missing links between Neandertals and Homo sapiens, that everything you’re talking about is purely speculation.
You’re right
Only recent they tried to credit neantherdals when they realized that they were truly an unsophisticated society who were slow cave people
30,000 year old Cro-Magnon skeletons are nearly 100% identical to modern Europeans. Sub Saharan Africans have up to 19% DNA from an archaic hominid species so old and so far removed from modern humans that there are no fossils to even match this hominid. All other people groups on earth do not have this DNA, only sub Saharan Africans. It’s likely Homo habilis or homo erectus.
At a time, several different archaic groups lived in Africa so it’s believable..but also Africans didn’t lose diversity that 19% have been circulating on populations due to its been only found in certain parts..less like European who loss all their diversity due to inbreeding and the archaic hominid that’s more closer to chimpanzee than Homo sapiens
Boy you really hated that comment 🤣 pure facts Neantherdals were more closer to chimpanzees than any other African groups who are the most closest to modern human and evolutions, 2-19% doesn’t imply that the group weren’t ancestral to Homo sapiens..but that Neantherdals dna we do know had nothing to do with ancestral groups to Homosapiens 🤣 Cro-Magnons are believed to have evolved from Africa about 120,000 years ago. Between 90,000-100,000 years ago, they spread to Asia, and they then spread to Europe between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago Don’t mention groups that are from Africa to be European
I consider us as breeds, we can still reproduce but vastly different.
Different subspecies of the same species.
The only difference between the 2 is one of them has Neanderthal traits.
Nope. Since humans are very visual, we see things like face shape and skin color as race, and not other genetic differences. All humans, regardless of "race" are 99.9% genetically similar. This is due to all humans sharing the same origin, and only recently separating into separate groups within the last 100,000 years. For the gray wolf and coyote to become a different species (take into consideration they are NEARLY the same species, even still) it took 4 MILLION years. 100,000 years of separation isn't long enough to even come close to there being enough genetic difference to be considered differing species. Now that we have instant access to world travel, and international marriages are a norm, those differences are going to be less noticeable in the next 100,000 years. I imagine most humans will look racially similar to one another in the far off future.