/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

The first thing to understand is that taxonomy is an arbitrary human discipline that attempts to categorize the history of life based on what we observe today and what the fossil record tells us. The purpose of this categorization is to facilitate consistent language so that the biological community can test theories about how evolution and ecology work. That said, there are many different concepts of "species" in taxonomy. The "biological species" concept, which holds reproductive isolation to be the most important characteristic for differentiating species, is the most popular default choice for classifying contemporary organisms. However, as soon as you attempt to classify fossil species you run into the problems of incomplete information and defining a group over a large length of time. Paleontologists typically default to the "chronospecies" concept describing a species as something with a given apparent morphology over a period of time. The biological species concept also runs into trouble when groups of organisms across a wide geographic area can interbreed with some collections of groups but not others (your example of Canis is sometimes described as a "superspecies" complex). It's important to understand that the definition of a species is itself not agreed upon across the all disciplines of biology.

Resting itself upon the arbitrariness of "species", the idea of "subspecies" is even more arbitrary, but population geneticists tend to focus on numerical measures of genetic distance to avoid the many pitfalls of prioritizing ecological, fertility, or morphology in distinguishing groups (there are still of course prioritizing one type of biology over all others). But if we go with this aspect, measures of genetic distance such as Fst are dramatically lower among different human groupings than other animals considered to have subspecies. This means that humans are not now and have not historically been geographically isolated long enough to produce consistent collections of alleles within alleged ethnic groups. In fact the genetic variation between individuals in a given ethnic group is often higher than the variation between that ethnic group and another. That is why humans cannot meet the subspecies definition used for other animals.

A point to make about facial morphology since your bait image seems to emphasize it: we have to be aware of our own anthropic bias when judging facial differences. Human eyes have evolved to pay far greater attention to facial features than other animals because we use our faces to communicate with one another. But just because our eyes tell us that small facial differences are important doesn't mean they matter that much from a larger ecological or evolutionary perspective.

Because taxonomic traits do not differ greatly enough.
Just because some one has a different skin color doesn't mean taxonomically they are different. Furthermore, as has already been stated, we made this shit all the fuck up and can choose where we want it to stop.

There are 2 species of humans:
Men (homo sapien) and Menlets (homo inadequus)

Because taxonomical categories became politicized categories, and ambiguity ensues to muddy what anything even is.
There were people in the 19th century debating the concept of biological race and what applies to humans - how many races are there, how are these groupings identified, and so on. The historical understanding of old taxonomy is that species did not breed with other species, while races interbred with other races. Growing knowledge of evolution as a process upended this understanding since in principle every life-form would be a transitional organism, rather than defined by any "species-being". In principle, this suggested biological modification in total was possible, and that life functions were mechanisms that could be taken apart and re-assembled. This thinking already entered the mind of some vanguard intellectuals when they thought of the potential of splicing human bodies and their genetic material (whatever that turned out to be, since the concept of genetics was very murky at this time, and genes originate not as a material thing but an abstraction of hereditary factors).

So if you want the real answer, it's the same answer as the explanation for the overt face of society for the past 100 years - eugenics and nothing else. Eugenics as a theory requires a very peculiar definition of "race" and treatment of a "race" for eugenic objectives, and this displaced earlier concepts of race in anthropology, science, or the concept of race in non-humans.

If you're arguing that "liberal leftist science" claims all humans are biologically equal and indistinguishable, and that everything about them is "social issues", that's never been the claim of anyone. Get high enough in biology and you'll see both virulent racists who make no qualms about it, and you will find very liberal-minded and progressive people who will flat out tell you the different qualities of every human race, that black people are not like white people, and that this is entirely correct. Many black Americans have always said they are not the same thing as whites and do not expect to be treated as equal in a biological sense. "Different does not mean deficient" - and ultimately this was used to justify a political project and the idiocy of the lowest elements of the white race, who should have been ignored and beaten more as children so they didn't shit up society with their faggotry. What's funny is that the ideological racists fixate on the most performative and stupid shit, because they're too cowardly to be actual racists, and they think this is supposed to impress anyone. The reason they are "strong" is because their faggotry is encouraged, because they mark themselves as enablers. The actual racists are far more excoriating. See a liberal in their private meetings and the mask comes off very quickly - and then you can hear black people turn on each other to win a position on the life boat. It's all a sick game played over things that should not have become this, always targeting the people who did the least to shit up humanity but who were seen as unsightly for a bunch of Satanic Nazi screamers.

For my part, I don't bother lecturing people about who gets to be what race or what they "ought to be" by some theory. I believe people know themselves, their family, their history, well enough to be the best authorities on defining what they are, and that's what is relitigated more than any racism in the genuine sense - the philosophical claims allowing false equivocation and insinuations about bullshit. If you look at people as they really are, none of the racist ideology is warranted or justifies what they're doing, because most people are quite aware of what a human is, what they could be if humanity weren't so fucking evil and sadistic, and that clearly deserve better than what they're getting. You don't need to invent some statistics and then bastardize them beyond recognition to justify more misery and insinuation, and the point of the eugenists isn't to reach some set goal or look for any objective metric. It's to defend their insinuation machine and select for the most predatory fucks of any race, and encourage their filthy religion through unlimited fear. If you really need a Final Solution in this world, the eugenists are the race to be exterminated first, and inshallah, it will happen.

Will also say - white people vastly overestimate their "smarts", believe in the stupidest symbols and virtue signaling because they've been trained to become fags of the lowest sort. The people who bray the most about who the smart/stupid races are are visibly stupid degenerates justifying their perversion. Usually the legit racists remain quiet and let the enablers shit up the world for them - and the enablers are trained like dogs to obey, which says something about what the white race became. Us Yakubians did it to ourselves I'm afraid.

>>479612
>races
that term was depreciated
-the scientific community was too embarrassed about 18 and 19 century "race-science". They were frauds, measuring the size of people's skulls to make it look sciency and then just made shit up.
-We also discovered genetics, it turns out a lot of old-timy race-classification were completely wrong, Dog-races for pets are mostly just brand-names. For proper science based on genetic stuff the word sub-species is used, to avoid confusion.

It's all very un-intuitive
We have over 10000 different ant-sub-species. Many of whom only have slightly different antlers/antennas.
Sometimes there are animals that look very different but their genetics make them the same species, while other animals that look very similar have genetics that make them separate species.

<What is the scientific explanation for why there are no human subspecies
There used to be lots of human subspecies like for example Neanderthals and Denisovans. But they all died out. We don't really know why. There's just one type of human now, basically us. There is lots of speculations about why human subspecies were extinct, but they tend to be light on scientific evidence, often leaning into the genre of pre-historic-fiction.

>>479626
so its phenotype vs genotype?

>>479634
I can sort of understand why you'd think this, but no, not really.

Most of the ways of categorizing organisms that predate high fidelity scientific measurement instruments don't really work, it doesn't map 1:1 onto any of the more recent scientific knowledge. Many are hellbent on doing that anyway and are attempting to shoe-horn genetic data into racial categories that originated in the 17 century for example. To the great chagrin of geneticists, i might add. Which understandably do not want to have biases injected into their work.

I will say that the genetic rout probably isn't the last page in this book. My hunch is that organisms might be described as a self replicating pattern that adapts and changes over time. As well as connecting to other parts of a biome through matter, energy and information exchange.

>>479638
Gee… like, I don't know, an assembly of objects working in concert. What do we call those objects? "Organs"? Heavens no, that is against The Science. Organisms can't have organs, don't be silly!