[–] chirogonemd 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
It wouldn't represent a new species truly, unless you could invariably distinguish the organism from either of its ancestors in terms of behaviors, morphology, etc. By that criteria, we can represent blacks and whites as classes as being different species. You can analyze the charred remains of a corpse and use morphological factors to identify race. The research is there pertaining to average IQ differentials between white europeans and black africans, and the difference is substantial.
The hybridization you are describing is mongrelization. A general loss of distinguishing traits between the two parents. I'll tell you who's expense its at, but you already know.
George soros studies darwin
[–] CrudOMatic ago (edited ago)
The word "race" used to mean what "species" means today; however, since Victorians and earlier thought blacks & other races were different species, they used the word "race" to denote the different ethnicities & breeds - by the time the word "species" was created, "race" had come to mean the same as "breed".
[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
[–] killthedoob ago
Wow but we know life can just pop out of nowhere, it's some magical force we will never understand
[–] Thegreatstoneddragon 3 points 23 points 26 points (+26|-3) ago
Liberal dilemma is real
[–] MannKepetry ago
just because two species split doesnt mean there is a lot of genetical divergence. what has the most influence on genetics are the number of generations. for a meaningful change evolution has to go through many generations which are very long for humans compared to most animals so this means very long time spans measured in the hundred thousands. for changes that people think there are between human races much longer time spans would have been needed.