It's scientifically comproved that sub-saharan africans (not including Ethiopians, Western Africans, and Somalis) compared to Europeans and Eastern Asians share a percentage of 99.97% of similarity. Just for you to know Chimps are like 98% close to us. This means we're not that close to Africans as scientists and all this agenda are trying to say.
don't know about subsaharans but i've always thought aboriginal australians were a different speciesthey're unlike any other human race
>>18482525aboriginals are africans who immigrated to australia. I believe southern indians are africans too.
>>18482535why do you want to destroy our race? We didn't even impregnate your women.
>>18482522>comproved
>>18482527Abos/Melanesians/South Indians are more closely related to east asians than africans tho
>>18483300lies
>>18483300true (kinda)
>>18483300aboriginals have nothing to do with them. They are africans. South Indians come from Africa's horn.
>>18482522>comprovedpajeet thread
>>18483843they have 99.97% of difference, you retard.
>>18483834All humans come from AfricaAboriginal australians in particular, together with their melanesian cousins, are a branch of the specific population that would later go on to become east asians, they are not at all closely related to modern subsaharan africans
Aboriginals are essentially the population most conservative to Proto-Eurasians from the earliest OoA migrations, that's why they seem African-like. That's also why they have the most undifferentiated Eurasian haplogroup(C).
>>18482522>(not including Ethiopians, Western Africans, and Somalis)But what does that leave us with? Western Africans are Bantus are they not? They're what most people think when they think of sub-saharan Africans>>18482525If you can breed and produce fertile offspring then you're the same species. Simple as. The only exception are brown bears and polar bears but even then their taxonomic classification is controversial, they split off from eachother far longer ago than when humans left Africa as well. Modern humans left Africa fairly recently in geographic timescale, it's just not that likely that significant evolutionary divergence occurred from this time, especially given how transient humans are as a species compared to bears. People think racial characteristics are the result of evolution but that's inaccurate, they're just the result of different gene expressions. Evolution describes what set of gene expressions are available to a given species, but not what particular genes are expressed per se. Gene expression happens in far smaller timescales than evolution does.
>>18484231> Western Africans are Bantus are they not? Other way around.
>>18484231>Western Africans are Bantus are they not?this is like saying spaniards are latinx
>>18484231> If you can breed and produce fertile offspring then you're the same species. Simple as. Neanderthals and Sapiens, Neanderthals and Erectus? (Thus giving rise to Denisovans). Hybridization is decently common in the animal kingdom; there is no satisfactory definition for "species".> People think racial characteristics are the result of evolution but that's inaccurate, they're just the result of different gene expressions. This is objectively incorrect.
>>18484252Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, and Denisovans are all considered part of the same subspecies anon.
>>18482525Australo-melanesians + Negritos have high archaic admixture; I recall a very particular group of Negritos being a bit less than 90% Sapiens, yet looking quite normal. Pretty interesting how Abbos retained a ton of archaic features despite not being especially archaic (~7% non-Sapiens).They're a five-way between Sapiens, Neanderthals, "Ghost", and finally Denisovans and thus Erectus too.
>>18484257it's kinda comproved that tropical populations tend to have lower iq compared to temperate populations
>>18484257Only very certain people group them together like that, which actually proves my point.
