What is your honest opinion on monolids


View Full Version: There are human races



Pages :12345678 [9] 1011121314151617

Likewise for me. In fact, there aren't any.
A three-year-old can already see that there are different races of people. And it is also very easy to assign human races to individuals.
In order to deny this, intellectual acrobatics are required, which one must have studied at the corresponding (post-modern-cultural-Marxist) authority.

In biological terms, strictly speaking, there are none - only additions

There were and are also natural dog breeds that were created without specific breeding.

A three-year-old can already see that there are different races of people. And it is also very easy to assign human races to individuals.
In order to deny this, intellectual acrobatics are required, for which one must have studied at the appropriate (post-modern-cultural-Marxist) authority. How can a three-year-old recognize that after his sexual maturity he can cross with all fertile human women without exception?

Are there no breeds of dogs either?

Dog is a bad choice because it is bred. But even with the original wolf there are 12 races.

How is a three-year-old supposed to recognize that after sexual maturity he can crossbreed with all fertile human women without exception?

What does this have to do with different races?

Aren't there any breeds of dogs?

Dog is a bad choice because it is bred. But even with the original wolf there are 12 races.

As I have already written, there are or have been natural breeds of dogs.

There were and are also natural dog breeds that arose without specific breeding. Small Wikipedia lesson: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunde

The dogs (Canidae) are a family (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Familie_(Biologie)) within the superfamily of the canine species (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Hundeartige). The dogs include, for example, the foxes (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Echte_F%C3%BCchse), various species known as "jackal (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Schakal)", Coyotes (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Kojote), and wolves (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Wolf), their domesticated forms, the domestic dogs (http://www.politikforen. net / wiki / Haushund), which gave the group its name.

Sure there are dog breeds; there are dog species and subspecies.

How is a three-year-old supposed to recognize that after sexual maturity he can crossbreed with all fertile human women without exception?

However, this is not an argument against the existence of races, because individuals of different races but of the same kind are very capable of crossbreeding with one another.

There were and are also natural dog breeds that were created without specific breeding. No. There are no natural breeds of dogs. The dog itself was created "unnaturally" through human selection. Otherwise it would be a wolf.

Small Wikipedia lesson: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunde

And??

Because some people associate other people with an alleged race and therefore devalue them.

If I call a Japanese person an Asian, is that pejorative?

Strictly speaking, from a biological point of view, none exist - only addictions, however. Breeds are created through selection of breeds.

No. There are no natural breeds of dogs. The dog itself was created "unnaturally" through human selection. Otherwise it would be a wolf.

And what about the peat dog?

What does this have to do with different races? The offspring of crosses with species or subspecies of the same genus are mostly sterile - this is never the case with humans.

And ?? again learned nothing!

There are canine species and subspecies ... and breeds of dogs.
"Dogs" are a family. The is subdivided into genera, and these in turn into species.

What about the peat dog, what about him? This is a human breed of dog.

The offspring of crosses with species or subspecies of the same genus are mostly sterile - this is never the case with humans.

It's about races, not species.
By the way, you're not up to date. Http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article124355327/Ein-bisschen-Neandertaler-steckt-in-jedem-von-uns.html

... This is a human breed of dog.

There is no evidence for that.

Learned nothing again!

What am I supposed to learn from you idiots?

..and breeds of dogs.
"Dogs" are a family. It is divided into genera, and these in turn are divided into species. I have known the biological systematics since my school days: kingdom, tribe, class, order, family, genus, species.

What should I learn from you idiots? The "idiot" is characterized by stubborn adherence to false teachings!

The "idiot" is characterized by stubborn adherence to false teachings!

Yes, that's why you're an idiot. ;)

There is no evidence for it, nor is it necessary.
It goes without saying that man has not thrown out which individuals he continues to increase and which not.

There are still people, there are those who think the whole world should be globalized and there can then be race riots and they themselves don't have to go along with something like that!


Yes, these people, they are powerful people.
They are sure to laugh up their sleeves when you warn that it is very dangerous to allow conditions (i.e. globalization) and then to have bad race riots in your areas!
: hmm:

You have to stop that!
Away with the globalization filth! : germane:

You don't need it either.
It goes without saying that man has not thrown out which individuals he continues to increase and which not.

Clear. All animals only exist because humans want them to. : D

clear. All animals only exist because humans want them to. : dhä ??

huh ??

That was a response to your moronic post.

That was a response to your moronic post, which post was maddened in what way?

From a "purely biological" point of view, there are no races. Then negroes no longer even have a race of their own. Whites really do everything for them. It goes without saying that they are now coming to Europe in droves to take at least a little bit of what evil whites have done for them.
http://www.24-carat.de/Forum/L-05.GIF
They will probably take back their race so that it remains black power if they pop you, and so that it remains racism if you hit back. They don't like racists like you. You also make enemies of our proletariat if you want to take away all the races from them that they need to play master of the world and great lady with them:
http://www.24-carat.de/Forum/L-05.GIF
http://www.24-carat.de/2014/08/FEM-LOVE.JPG

A three-year-old can already see that there are different races of people. And it is also very easy to assign human races to individuals.
In order to deny this, intellectual acrobatics are required, which one must have studied at the corresponding (post-modern-cultural-Marxist) authority.

Yeah, of course. There is the blonde breed, the brunette breed, and the black-haired breed. Special care must be taken with the red-haired breed. That is why the vernacular speaks of the "classy blonde over there".

Baldness is of course particularly bad. Fortunately, fundamental things have already been written about their malevolence and insidiousness. Are you looking there: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kamm

And??
The usual trolls: self-important nonsense. Dog breeds: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunderassen_in_der_Systematik_der_FCI

No. There are no natural breeds of dogs. The dog itself was created "unnaturally" through human selection. Otherwise it would be a wolf.

Naaaa, you little smart ass .... what is this eating :)

The African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) is the largest wild dog in the African savannah.
In older literature it is often found under the name "hyena dog", as it looks remotely similar to a hyena.
Like the hyenas, the African wild dog is a pack animal. Unlike the hyenas, however, only the dominant pair reproduces within a pack. ....

No. There are no natural breeds of dogs. The dog itself was created "unnaturally" through human selection. Otherwise it would be a wolf.

In the end, nothing is unnatural, except the human endeavor to want to be supernatural. That's why he's desperately looking for aliens and thinks they can become friends.
Some breeds of dogs would of course not be viable, like this pug, no chance. Terrier breeds, however, do.
It doesn't matter how the selection took place, it did take place. Humans are also part of nature, so hopefully we will agree on that, right?
So a selection of humans is also natural, humans are a natural factor, they belong to nature like trees.
Therefore, dog breeds cannot be unnatural. Just the perversion of people to tease out certain characteristics.
But perversions are also natural, such as compassion, child sex or interracial porn (animal sex). So of course there are stones too.
Licking it may seem unnatural to stupid, but since man and stone are natural, this funny interaction is also natural.
I know this is not your cause, but what do you want to do? In the end everything is nature, even the nudist knows that. He developed such funny camps.
There it can be completely natural, of course you don't have to think that's great, but nature doesn't ask what kind of ugly people they are ... just humans.

From a "purely biological" point of view, there are no races.


And why is there even a separate article about it in WIKI :)

In purely biological terms, there are no people, biology does not evaluate and does not separate. Again, it's just the human.
It doesn't matter what kind of drawers he thinks up and calls "purely organic".
Man speaks all kinds of "pure nonsense".

From a "purely biological" point of view, there are no races.

From a purely scientific point of view, however, there are no species. This is just a working bridge in biology. Therefore, every statement that all people belong to the same species is wrong from the very beginning. Incidentally, all of this can be found in this thread. Have posted this information enough times by now.

In purely biological terms, there are no people, biology does not evaluate and does not separate. Again, it's just the human.
It doesn't matter what kind of drawers he thinks up and calls "purely organic".
Man speaks all kinds of "pure nonsense".

Correct. From a purely biological point of view, we belong to the dry-nosed monkeys;)

Yeah, of course. There is the blonde breed, the brunette breed, and the black-haired breed. Special care must be taken with the red-haired breed. That is why the vernacular speaks of the "classy blonde over there".

Baldness is of course particularly bad. Fortunately, fundamental things have already been written about their malevolence and insidiousness. Are you looking there: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kamm

You can even sell trying to be desperately funny as humor. Nobody has anything against it, except for the humor, it seems.
Somewhere someone will probably give you a little valley for when you dance to it. Assuming you can't really do that either.
Bruce wants it that way too, if he has to save your world again, don't qualify the racy bald head as a bald breed!
It was born in Germany, but it moves hundreds of millions of dollars, your PC keyboard at most.
A world without races, that would allow us both to share more than just kinship.
Obviously you want to discuss differences away now, but I would like to insist on differences.
God save me, we share a race! Who actually asked me? I am not a beekeeper!
As a full-time failure, I can also work part-time, even that I can do better.

The Incarnation was a really bad joke of evolution. She should have stayed with the monkey!

Correct. From a purely biological point of view, we belong to the dry-nosed monkeys;)
And they belong "purely biologically" to the mammalian class:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_sapiens

The human (also Homo sapiens, Latin (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Latein), understanding, understanding or wise, clever, clever, reasonable person) is according to the biological systematics (http: // www .politikforen.net / wiki / Systematik_ (Biologie)) a higher mammal (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/H%C3%B6here_S%C3%A4ugetiere) from the order (http: //www.politikforen. net / wiki / Ordinance_ (Biology)) of the primates (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Primaten) (Primates). He belongs to the subordination (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Uunterordnung_(Biologie)) of the dry-nosed monkeys (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Trockennasenaffen) (Haplorrhini) and there to the family (http: / /www.politikforen.net/wiki/Familie_(Biologie)) of the great apes (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Menschenaffen) (Hominidae). Humans are the only surviving species (http://www.politikforen .net / wiki / Art_ (Biologie)) of the genus (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Gattung_(Biologie)) Homo (http://www.politikforen.net/wiki/Homo). ...

The Incarnation was a really bad joke of evolution. She should have stayed with the monkey!

I don't like body hair

Hello umananda

From a "purely biological" point of view, there are no races.

There are races in the legal sense. That's enough to confirm the title.

There are races in the legal sense. That is enough to confirm the title. There is mainly racism in the legal sense and that is not enough "to confirm the title".

There are races in the legal sense. That's enough to confirm the title.

because of race, religion, origin, worldview
................

Above all, there is racism in the legal sense and that is not enough "to confirm the title".

are also breed specific drugs

Small Wikipedia lesson: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunde
You distract with Wikiquark.

And don't care about the superspecies.

Correct. From a purely biological point of view, we belong to the dry-nosed monkeys;)

But mine is running all the time, something is wrong here.
Dry-nosed monkey ... hmmm ... whimpering women, coke-making superstars and a scruffy Jesus.
Somehow the dry-nosed monkeys got lost in humanity. That's why they like to separate ... people - animals - plants.
Rarely disabled, I have to say.
Even the dry-nosed monkey frowns dryly ... "he thinks he's something better or something".

I don't like body hair

Hello umananda

From monkey to monkey it was washed. You wouldn't know anything but fur. There will hardly be any gorillas who undergo "waxing".

From monkey to monkey it was washed. You wouldn't know anything but fur. There will hardly be any gorillas who undergo "waxing".

I'm sorry. I can only judge something that exists. And I just don't like body hair. If we were monkeys, at least we wouldn't have to debate it. Then we'd be rocking stupidly on the branch.

Hello umananda

In biological terms, strictly speaking, there are none - only additions



You idiot just talk politically correct shit with no meaning or understanding.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Malamute

I'm sorry. I can only judge something that exists. And I just don't like body hair. If we were monkeys, at least we wouldn't have to debate it. Then we'd be rocking stupidly on the branch.

Hello umananda

Which would make even more sense in the end, funny, right?
The stupid monkey does it right, somehow. He swings on the branch, while we name branches and swing tactics separately.
"Now he's swinging to impress the ladies."
Man judges, monkey does. If the monkey did judge, he would do nothing ... except judge.
The monkey doesn't care if humans judge other people because they judge them in a judgmental manner. He swings stupidly on the branch and is happy.

Which would make even more sense in the end, funny, right?
The stupid monkey does it right, somehow. He swings on the branch, while we name branches and swing tactics separately.
"Now he's swinging to impress the ladies."
Man judges, monkey does. If the monkey did judge, he would do nothing ... except judge.
The monkey doesn't care if humans judge other people because they judge them. He swings stupidly on the branch and is happy.

What should I answer to that? It's a matter of taste and it's hard to argue about. Each as he likes.

Hello umananda

You idiot just talk politically correct shit with no meaning or understanding.

... Scientific knowledge of biology is based on "sense and understanding"!

Scientific knowledge in biology is based on "sense and understanding"!


You idiot hate reading the link.



The Alaskan Malamute is one of the oldest Arctic dog breeds and was also the only dog ​​breed in the northwestern part of the Arctic until the 19th century. These dogs have been pulling goods and sleds for people in this region for over 2000 years. In the early 20th century, the Alaskan Malamute became popular in the sled dog sport. At this time they were increasingly crossed with other breeds. From 1926 one began with the pure breeding of this breed. It is named after the Inuit tribe of the Malemutes

What should I answer to that? It's a matter of taste and it's hard to argue about. Each as he likes.

Hello umananda

I just mean, what is the point of arguing about whether there are races or not?
What changes from the fact that a negro is a negro and a funny little Chinese is a funny little Chinese?
We can do away with Asiaticism, ignore races and differences and make this a law. What is the point of that?
Humans deal with such nonsense all day long, and the little monkey counteracts it in a very intelligent way.
I mean that. They are drawers, none of which exist. They are all made up and they could have been separated differently.
That almost degenerates into religion.

A question:

Why do you desperately want to classify people into races?
Why is it so important to you?

A question:

Why do you convulsively deny that the earth is round?
Why is that so important to you?

I don't like body hair

Hello umananda

Then shave yourself.

http://www.hubert-brune.de/menschenrassen_theorien.html

Then shave yourself.
On the chest. hihi

I just mean, what is the point of arguing about whether there are races or not?
What changes from the fact that a negro is a negro and a funny little Chinese is a funny little Chinese?
We can do away with Asiaticism, ignore races and differences and make this a law. What is the point of that?
Humans deal with such nonsense all day long, and the little monkey counteracts it in a very intelligent way.
I mean that. They are drawers, none of which exist. They are all made up and they could have been separated differently.
That almost degenerates into religion.

Well, the chimpanzees also wage wars among themselves. It's not all better just because it's different.

Hello umananda

You dork hate not read the link. Animal breeds were and are willingly bred by humans.

I'm sorry. I can only judge something that exists. And I just don't like body hair. If we were monkeys, at least we wouldn't have to debate it. Then we'd be rocking stupidly on the branch.

Hello umananda

Yes, we would swing on the branch, throw excrement at each other, eat fruit and leaves all day, hop around and screech every now and then. Bad?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5PnjWQE8Cw

Well, the chimpanzees also wage wars among themselves. It's not all better just because it's different.

Hello umananda

The chimpanzee is more like us than we can be. Let us also abolish the race, we are more equal than equal.
Except for us, it is only the chimpanzee who oppresses, tortures, kills or enslaved fellows. It's interesting.
The euro man should not count himself as part of God's crown of any creation, he should just watch his relatives there.
He will learn more about himself than he can imagine. He doesn't even have to laugh at negroes, he's no different.
And yet it separates. Why? Because of the appearance? Well then I would like to point out that the woman is stranger to me than any negro. From the appearance as from the nature, as from the chromosome shit.

Which would make even more sense in the end, funny, right?
The stupid monkey does it right, somehow. He swings on the branch, while we name branches and swing tactics separately.
"Now he's swinging to impress the ladies."
Man judges, monkey does. If the monkey did judge, he would do nothing ... except judge.
The monkey doesn't care if humans judge other people because they judge them. He swings stupidly on the branch and is happy.

The monkey poops and fucks around when other monkeys can watch him. He just doesn't care. In and of itself a sensible attitude.

The stupidity of reducing social problems to skin color.

No skull shapes, muscles etc.

The monkey poops and fucks around when other monkeys can watch him. He just doesn't care. In and of itself a sensible attitude.

Yes, everyone has been to a club like this before, haven't they? Haha.
Basically, a certain parking lot or a nudist spot in summer is enough. There you can watch the monkeys, be with the monkey.
As soon as it gets dark, monkeys seem to be covered in sugar. They are starting to bump around each other, regardless of gender.

Animal breeds were and are willingly bred by humans.

Of course, Depperl.

Especially the geographic races: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterart#Geographische_Rassen

:cool:

But the genetic differences within the Homo Sapiens species are extremely small. The Homo Sapiens is genetically an extremely homogeneous species ...

Let's look back to the 19th century, when you met black people in Inner Africa. For the most part, they still lived as their intellect, talent and ability allowed.

Kevin Alfred Strom writes: “There is no evidence whatsoever that the races of humans are alike in intelligence (or in many other properties), and it would actually be a bizarre anomaly of nature if they were. After many thousands of years of divergent evolution in very different environments, it would be astonishing if we found that the human races were "the same" in their physical structure or mental configuration. The whole concept of the evolution of life through branching and speciation depends on the ever-blossoming inequality of races or subspecies. This is true of every form of life, and frankly, it is not really reasonable to believe that it is not true of human beings. … “The accounts of Christian explorers venturing into Africa during the 19th century (expeditions in brackets) including Henry Francis Flynn (1824-34), David Livingstone (1840-56), Francis Galton (1850-51), Paul Belloni du Chaillu (1856-59), JH Speke (1860-1863), Samuel White Baker (1862-65) and Georg August Schweinfurth convey impressions with which we can judge the societies of origin of the slaves in Saint Domingue - societies of the African interior that are not influenced by Arab culture. The work of those researchers trusted for their accuracy and reliability in reporting was summarized by John Baker in 1974 in his book Race. Rushton reviews Baker's work in Race, Evolution, and Behavior. He writes: “J.R. Baker (1974) writes that the impressions gained suggested a lower level of culture, characterized by a naked or almost naked appearance, sometimes broken up by an amulet or jewelry rather than by covering the genital area. Baker further observed:

• Self-mutilation by filing your teeth and piercing your ears and lips to hold large pieces of jewelry,
• poorly developed toilet and sanitary habits,
• single-storey houses of simple construction,
• Villages that rarely reach 6,000 or 7,000 inhabitants or are connected by roads,
• simple canoes carved from large trees with no additional parts,
• no discovery of the wheel for pottery, for grinding grain or for vehicle traffic,
• little domestication of animals or their use for work and transport,
• no writings or records of historical events (there was not a single written language in sub-Saharan Africa),
• no use of money,
• No invention of a number system or a calendar.

Some researchers were struck by the lack of an administration and a legal code. Examples were told of chiefs who would kill in a despotic manner at will for minor rule violations or just for pleasure.

Yes, everyone has been to a club like this before, haven't they? Haha.
Basically, a certain parking lot or a nudist spot in summer is enough. There you can watch the monkeys, be with the monkey.
As soon as it gets dark, monkeys seem to be covered in sugar. They are starting to bump around each other regardless of gender.

Chimp Out is still inside everyone somewhere.: D.

Of course it is, Depperl.

Especially the geographic races: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterart#Geographische_Rassen

: cool: There is no human subspecies or subspecies.

There is no human subspecies or subspecies.

Because of passed. Combinations of hereditary characteristics, the species Homo Sapiens has been divided into a number of form groups, in general. referred to as a race. In addition to skin, hair and eye color (complex of pigmentation), the most striking distinctions are certain head, body and face shapes, along with existing physiological and psychological differences. These concern the heat regulation, homonic balance, sensitivity and behavior. The most common is the breakdown according to skin color (the white race is referred to by anthropology - to which racial studies also belongs - as europid, black as nigrid and yellow as mongolid).

The over the americ. The Indian race, which is widespread on the continent, emerged from the Mongolian race. There are also some groups such as Australids and Pygmids who have a special position because they cannot be assigned to any of these large races. The large races can in turn be subdivided into sub-races (varities - human in the real sense), occasionally also into local races.

• Europids (developed from the single homo sapien population of the Neolithic in the Eurasian region, which is not yet known for sure) are again divided into 2 branches, a light (European) and a dark (Asian-African) branch.


• Monolids (have colonized large parts of the earth in the course of their history and adapted to different geographical and climatic conditions.) The large races also become


• Eskmiden calculated (differentiated over the course of the millennium in northern North America and on Greenland)


The physical is very heterogeneous. Image of

• Indianids, who (in several waves - probably from the area of ​​Northeast Asia) over the Bering Strait to the Americ. Reached the continent.


• Negrids (form of adaptation to the tropical conditions of Central and West Africa)


• Australids


• Pygmids (dwarfism) occur in Africa and Asia, also in South America. They are probably convergent, independent developments.


One tries to endeavor to come to a more precise breakdown than has been the case up to now, taking into account anthropometic and morphological as well as serological and biochemical data as well as the use of modern statistical methods. (quantitative systematics).

It is still unclear to what extent the undoubtedly present psychological differences are genetically determined or have their causes in non-genetic factors. Before this is clarified, one must show great restraint and skepticism towards all results and the cultural anthropological conclusions derived from them.

The evolution of Homo Sapiens as a species as well as its differentiation into the races that exist today is the result of the interaction of a number of population genetic factors such as mutation, selection, isolation and migration. That is what population genetics are for.

There is no human subspecies or subspecies.

But at least races !!!

So you confirm my previously chosen salutation Depperl for you :)

In purely biological terms, there are no people, biology does not evaluate and does not separate. Again, it's just the human.
It doesn't matter what kind of drawers he thinks up and calls "purely organic".
Man speaks all kinds of "pure nonsense".
Man wants to explain nature to himself and therefore defines the differences that he recognizes. He can be wrong about this. What is not bad, it doesn’t change anything in nature.

But at least races !!!
... In some heads maybe - not from a purely biological point of view.

Perhaps in some heads - not from a purely biological point of view.

pol cor one speaks of ethnic groups, but they are races.

That adapted to the climate like animals.

Indeed, there are races. Am I now a Nazi? >>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasse

Indeed, there are races. Am I now a Nazi? >>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasse

http://www.profil.at/home/merkmal-menschen-vergleiche-rassen-ethnien-menschengruppen-229114



breed specific drugs


http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(United_States_Census)


The USA knows race

http://www.schulnote.de/Menschenrassen_840_hausaufgabe_referat.html


http://www.my-career.de/wissen/menschenrassen.php

http://www.zeit.de/1969/18/sind-neger-real- duemmer/seite-3





Are Negroes Really Stupid?

Page 3/5

Of course, the average IQ of a fine person who belongs to a professional group strictly selected according to intellectual performance is higher than that of a member of a collective that is less strictly sifted according to intellectual abilities. In an intelligence structure test, for example, new philologists achieved an average IQ of 109 and precision mechanics only 100, doctors 112 and administrative employees 99, senior bank officials 113 and bakers 91.

Overall, the IQ of women does not differ from that of men, although the verbal abilities of women seem to be more developed, which the masters of creation compensate for with better problem solving.

http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1277081/Nobelpreistraeger-nennt-Afrikaner-minder-intelligent.html



Nobel laureates call Africans less intelligent

James Watson received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1962 for deciphering the structure of DNA. Today the researcher causes a scandal with racist remarks: An interview in Great Britain triggers a storm of indignation up to the government level.


The US scientist James Watson, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for deciphering the structure of DNA, caused a scandal with racist remarks about black people. The London Science Museum said it had canceled a reading with Watson planned for Friday.

The reason is an interview with Watson in the "Sunday Times" in which he described Africans as less intelligent people. He is extremely pessimistic about the future of Africa, because "all our social policies are based on the assumption that their intelligence is the same as ours - although all tests say that this is not really the case".

http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1277081/Nobelpreistraeger-nennt-Afrikaner-minder-intelligent.html

Yes, I brought it up months ago, but the crowd is more about a kind of religion of "equality", regardless of whether it is refuted or not. Even if it's absurd, as the saying goes, it doesn't matter if it's true or a lie, it just has to be believed.

Indeed, there are races. Am I now a Nazi? >>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasse

Good link: geographic race. Geographical races are mostly parapatric, i.e. in contiguous but not overlapping areas
common forms of species that differ slightly but systematically, for example by coloring or drawing patterns.
Since they can be freely crossed with one another, a hybrid zone is usually formed in the contact zone.
Geographical races in zoology are now taxonomically described as subspecies,
this is sometimes expressly recommended in order to avoid the problematic term race. .....

Animal breeds were and are willingly bred by humans.

http://www.gegenargument.at/texte/241_Alle_Menschen_sind_gleich_oder_doch_nicht

Naaaa, you little smart ass .... what is this eating :)

The African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) is the largest wild dog in the African savannah. You devil wrote it yourself: The biggest wild dog in the savannah.
What does this have to do with the topic or my post?

Indeed, there are races. If I'm only Nazi, that's you. But it has nothing to do with races.

Even our Santa Claus will at some point understand that people are different and not the same. And it is precisely this diversity that makes the life of mankind, of races, ethnic groups, tribes, clans, families, each one of us so interesting and enriching. Imagine how monotonous or how life would be, as St. Nicholas imagines it to be. Dreadful.

No. There are no natural breeds of dogs. The dog itself was created "unnaturally" through human selection. Otherwise it would be a wolf.


You devil wrote it yourself: The biggest wild dog in the savannah.
What does this have to do with the topic or my post?


: fuck:

What does this have to do with your contribution? Naaa .... what do you think:?

You should fake quotes a little less if you are otherwise too stupid to post. :cool:

: fuck:

What does this have to do with your contribution? Naaa ... what do you think:? I don't know. Treason easy.
In full sentences.

Animal breeds were and are willingly bred by humans.
Correct. For food production (dairy cows, laying hens, woolly sheep, etc.), for sports and competitions (trotters, racehorses, greyhounds, fighting cocks), but also people (systematic selection for a tribal and family policy). It is already in the Bible who should marry with whom in order to pass on their seeds usefully.

Not Mendel but Jacob discovered the laws of inheritance for breeding:
Jacob comes to riches
http://www.bibel-online.net/buch/luther_1912/1_mose/30/#25

Correct. For food production (dairy cows, laying hens, woolly sheep, etc.), for sports and competitions (trotters, racehorses, greyhounds, fighting cocks), but also people (systematic selection for a tribal and family policy). Is it already in the Bible who should marry with whom in order to pass on their seeds in a profitable way. No races were bred there.


Not Mendel but Jacob discovered the laws of inheritance for breeding: even bigger nonsense. Jacob, of course, was not familiar with Mendel's law of bracing. No more than you.

I am not yet convinced of the theory of evolution, especially monkey -> human.

Certainly, if you look at a gorilla or a chimpanzee and then compare this picture with a negro, then you could indeed come to certain conclusions. But is that just a coincidence? And what about all other human races that are not black, have no bulging eyebrows, no frying pan lips and no broad noses with gigantic nostrils? Were there other monkeys involved everywhere?

Did nature, of all things, intend the apes to mutate further into humans? And why not all the monkeys? After all, there are still countless species of monkeys around the globe that have always managed to do nothing other than simply being and staying a monkey. Could it be that science just has no other explanation for the origin of humans at the moment?

Certainly, the assumption that an alien came to earth (with terraforming etc.) formed a person out of mud and then created a woman out of his rib, sounds somehow weird. But monkeys as ancestors sounds even crazier to me. Especially because science does not yet have the ultimate proof ... the Missing_Link (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Link).

I am not yet convinced of the theory of evolution, especially monkey -> human. How then? You already demonstrate in the first line that you don't even know her.

http://www.profil.at/home/merkmal-menschen-vergleiche-rassen-ethnien-menschengruppen-229114



breed specific drugs


http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(United_States_Census)


The USA knows race

Of course, it is clear even to the mentally disadvantaged that an African and a Chinese must have slightly different genes. But it has not yet got through to the federal government, because every non-German is the same there!

It's not about better and worse, but about DIFFERENT. They are not all the same, an African is DIFFERENT than a Chinese. That is a scientific fact!

How then? You already demonstrate in the first line that you don't even know her.
What you blind people can only read from will remain your secret, which is locked forever.

I am not yet convinced of the theory of evolution, especially monkey -> human.

Certainly, if you look at a gorilla or a chimpanzee and then compare this picture with a negro, then you could indeed come to certain conclusions. But is that just a coincidence? And what about all other human races that are not black, have no bulging eyebrows, no frying pan lips and no broad noses with gigantic nostrils? Were there other monkeys involved everywhere?

Did nature, of all things, intend the apes to mutate further into humans? And why not all the monkeys? After all, there are still countless species of monkeys around the globe that have always managed to do nothing other than simply being and staying a monkey. Could it be that science just has no other explanation for the origin of humans at the moment?

Certainly, the assumption that an alien came to earth (with terraforming etc.) formed a person out of mud and then created a woman out of his rib, sounds somehow weird. But monkeys as ancestors sounds even crazier to me. Especially because science does not yet have the ultimate proof ... the Missing_Link (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Link).

The theory of primitive man (out of Africa) and we come from today's apes is controversial.
In addition to the Neanderthals, there was a species in Asia that was also extinct. I forgot the name.

You devil wrote it yourself: The biggest wild dog in the savannah.
What does this have to do with the topic or my post?

You recently had a three-day ban for truncating / falsifying quotations. I'll explain it to you once more in a friendly manner: You either have to reproduce quotations in full or indicate their abbreviation. Incorrect quotations will be punished with a ban of at least three days, this does not apply to users who persist in doing so. They get more or significantly more.

Animal breeds were and are willingly bred by humans.
Maybe you should take a look at some more qualified literature.

I'll give you a keyword that will help you identify the variables of evolution: The Darwin's finches on the Galapagos.

From a single finch species that ended up in the Galapagos, over a dozen different subspecies, adapted to the food supply, emerged over the course of time, which not only differ phenotypically, but have differentiated so widely that they can no longer even be crossed with one another are.

Read a few natural history books first before you spit such an underexposed junk in the forum.

Chimp Out is still inside everyone somewhere.: D.

Well yeah The human females are still instinctual
of a magnificent "banana", "cucumber" or "meat sausage"
attract, although the "size" is supposedly not important!

Well yeah The human females are still instinctual
of a magnificent "banana", "cucumber" or "meat sausage"
attract, although the "size" is supposedly not important!

These human females quickly end up as charcoal with roast in the oven somewhere in the city forest.

Nonsense. No races were bred there.

Even bigger nonsense. Jacob, of course, was not familiar with Mendel's law of bracing. No more than you.

Don't bother: You yourself know the relevant biblical passages that call for the same ethnic and racial affiliation of the Hebrew spouses in order to keep the tribe pure.

On the origin of the stigmatization stick "racism" alias "xenophobia".

Was Kal Marx a Racist?
Karl Marx, the grandfather of the socialists, social democrats and communists, spoke out clearly against unworthy patrons in a letter:


“The Jewish N # i # g # g # e # r Lassalle, who fortunately leaves at the end of this week, has happily lost 5000 thalers again in a false speculation… It is now completely clear to me that he, like his brain and his Hair growth proves to be descended from the negroes who joined the procession of Moses from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother from his father's side crossed with a ******). Well, this connection of Judaism and Germanism with the negro-like basic substance must produce a strange product. The lad's intrusiveness is also ****** ".
Source: Marx-Engels, Complete Edition, Third Section, The Correspondence Between Marx and Engels, (Berlin 1929-31), Vol. III pp. 82 and 84.

SPD is called the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Is the Struwwelpeter story against “racism” and for “tolerance” - now a new SOCI ideology?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBp9Eo8U7Ko

The origin of the meaning and the fight against racism and anti-Semitism can be found in the Bible and in Freemasonry (from 1717 in London, from 1740 in Prussia).

Schwarzer Bube http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/H_Hoffmann_Struwwel_09.jpg

It is all a mental structure of the Freemasons, that with tolerance, human brotherhood, love of foreigners and anti-racism.

Mohr http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/H_Hoffmann_Struwwel_12.jpg


“It is one of the most essential conditions of our covenant to regard and treat all people as our brothers, regardless of class, religious difference, civil and national circumstances. The Freemason as such is not a citizen of this or that state, he is a citizen of the world, or to speak more precisely in the spirit of our consecration, a theopolitan, a citizen of God, a member of the all-embracing city of God "(Christoph Martin Wieland).

What is a Freemason?
A Freemason is a rational man with an open character, no matter what nation, race *), religion or class he belongs to. He desires to be friends with like-minded people whom he calls brothers. (»What is Freemasonry?« Bauhüttenverlag Hamburg 1971)

About the Freemason of the Illuminati Lodge "Anna Amalia to the three roses" in Weimar C. M. Wieland from ev. Parish family:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Martin_Wieland

*) In the Roman Catholic Church since Emperor Karl, only Christian baptism played a role, not ethnicity or race. Therefore the upper classes were mixed up by the church. In old documents, aristocratic families in the Germanic area often used the epithet “the black”, which referred to the hair color. The mothers or other ancestors of these "blacks" then mostly came from chief or noble families of black-headed peoples, such as Pechenegs, Turctatars, Hunno-Hungarians, Bulgaro-Avars, but also Spaniards, Portuguese, Moors or Levantners from the Mediterranean provinces of the Roman Empire were mixed in as far as Sweden. While the pre-Christian Roman emperors still held Germanic elite bodyguards, the "blond lions", the Christian European aristocratic upper classes hid their black-headed, alien racial characteristics, which were expressed not only in the hair color, under white powdered blond long-hair wigs. In the French Revolution, blonde nobles from Germanic tribe were preferred to slaughter.
Today the proletarian Orientals living here proudly see themselves as an elitist national community of the "black-headed", which the SOCIS and other Marxists do not denounce as "racism"!

Further:
DIE WELT October 2000:

"Foreigners enrich our society"
Friendship meeting of the Freemasons in the town hall: For international understanding, against racism
http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article538680/Auslaender_bereichern_unsere_Gesellschaft.html


As a further control body of the Council of Europe, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has the important task of preventing and combating all forms of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance in all their forms. The commission visits each member state in rotation, checks the measures taken by the member states to combat racism and intolerance for their effectiveness, and then publishes a country report on the findings for the attention of the Committee of Ministers.
http://www.freimaurer-rapperswil.ch/1116512.htm

It started publicly as early as 1845.
The psychiatrist Heinrich Hoffmann had entered a box of the Freemauer in 1836.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hoffmann

In order to educate his little son with the ideals of the Freemasons, he painted him the Struwwelpeterbuch with appropriate examples and punishments.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struwwelpeter

In 1845, the publishers Z. Löwenthal and Rindskopf from Frankfurt's Judengasse took over to present the magazine to a wider audience.


The manufactured goods dealer Jospeh Rütten, a son of the Rindskopf family from Frankfurt's Judengasse, founds the »Literary Institute Frankfurt am Main«. He has an experienced partner at his side: Zacharias Löwenthal, who changed his Jewish name to »Loening« in 1857, acted as the publisher of Junge Deutschland until his publishing house was banned in 1935. Universal scientific and fictional titles appear in the »Literarisches Anstalt«, including »The Holy Family« by Marx / Engels and »Der Struwwelpeter« by Heinrich Hoffmann.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_R%C3%BCtten
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Friedrich_Loening

Education for local tolerance towards strangers seemed to be particularly important for the Jews Löwenthal and Rindskopf. This “anti-racism equals anti-Semitism” is preached in the story of the Mohren (Negro) and his discrimination. Numerous stars of David adorn the pictures in the Struwwelpeter book. Nicholas is depicted as a black-bearded, avenging rabbi with a red Jacobin hat.

Rabbi Nikolas http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/H_Hoffmann_Struwwel_10.jpg

It should therefore also be clear that behind the “fight against racism and intolerance” there is first a campaign for philosemitism and friendship with Jews, as there have always been more Jews than black Africans!

.................................. There is a lizard that reproduces parhenogenetically and a naked mole rat,
come to mind spontaneously. There's more. The seahorse ladies give their eggs to the seahorse men and the
Males hatch the offspring. It's a shame that only seahorses can do that! ......................................... . .....

First the term: correct term: parthenogenesis = means something like virgin generation; see Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenese.
Lizards and seahorses are not mammals and especially in the seahorse offspring there is no parthenogenesis because they are 2 sexes
Offspring are required!

The naked mole rat, belonging to the mammalian genus, are in social associations with related individuals
living animals, in these associations there is only 1 reproductive female (queen), the sexual instinct in the other animals
is suppressed by those of higher rank!



Elbe spirit: to:

I am from the theory of evolution, especially monkey -> human [...]

Not correct!!!!!!



########## Common ancestor
########## I ############# I
Other monkeys ############### human

No wonder, after all, races are the hobbyhorse of right-wing extremists.

There are no races - just different cultures.

...
The seahorse ladies give their eggs to the seahorse men and the males hatch the offspring.

It's a shame that only seahorses can do that!
...

Well, now I'm amazed. As an advocate of the rights of trannies and homos, you write something like that when the press is already cheering about the pregnant "men":

http://www.hna.de/welt/schwangerer-mann-bringt-zweites-kind-welt-348492.html

How about class instead of race?

Classes, races, it doesn't matter. They fulfill their purpose ... the left "philanthropist" also divides into classes.
Those who see the world the way they do and the evil right wing. They are about as bad as the bad capitalists and they used to be against the state.
Today they run to the public prosecutor's office because someone made a Jewish joke. The best Jewish jokes come from Jews themselves, take care!
But recent socialists have always had their problems with Jews. That was also the case before Adolf, he didn't invent it.

How about class instead of race?

The term class is already used in biological systematics. For example, we belong to the class of mammals.

How about class instead of race?
So that you can get to know and understand the correct biological taxonomy of the human species, I set up a classification table:

49169

Superfamily
family
Subfamily
genus
Kind (here is the human)
Subspecies (Here there is no longer any subdivision in humans for presumably ideological reasons, but in the great apes there is already one level higher in the species - why probably ...

... You must either reproduce quotations in full or indicate their abbreviation ...

Are three points enough for you? A quotation is by definition an excerpt from the quoted text. MM should be marked with changes or abbreviations in order to point out possible misrepresentations.

Don't bother: You yourself know the relevant biblical passages that call for the same ethnic and racial affiliation of the Hebrew spouses in order to keep the tribe pure. [...] Uninteresting. That was not the point at all. These are not Mendel's laws that are supposed to be in the Bible. Either you quote it here from the Bible, or I have to assume that you do not know it yourself.

The term class is already used in biological systematics. For example, we belong to the class of mammals, which would have given you the answer that I could hardly mean the systematics of biology ...

There are no races - just different cultures.

But there are races.

Breeds that are climatically or adapted to a diet.
Negroes have short, broad noses for hot climates.

Yes, yes. Breeds are created through selection of breeds.

No. There is, for example, the forest elephant, it was never bred.

http://www.zentralafrika.de/Gorillas--Co/Waldelefanten/

As a breed, it belongs to the African elephant genus.





The Asian elephant is divided into 4 RACES.

No breeding.

Distribution:
Within its South Asian range, it is divided into four different geographic races:

• the Indian elephant from India (Elephas maximus indicus),


• the Malaya elephants from Malaysia and Thailand (E. m. Hirsutus),


• the Ceylon elephants of Sri Lanka (E. m. Maximus) and


• the Sumatran elephant of Sumatra (E. m. Sumatranus).

But there are races.

Breeds that are climatically or adapted to a diet.
Negroes have short, broad noses for hot climates. And a long ......... L

Maybe you should take a look at some more qualified literature.

I'll give you a keyword that will help you identify the variables of evolution: The Darwin's finches on the Galapagos.

From a single finch species that ended up in the Galapagos, over a dozen different subspecies, adapted to the food supply, emerged over the course of time, which not only differ phenotypically, but have differentiated so widely that they can no longer even be crossed with one another are.

Read a few natural history books first before you spit such an underexposed junk in the forum. Compare with the animal kingdom usually limp! About 40,000 years ago the first humans of the species homo sapiens reached Europe - not enough time for a subspecies to evolve.

No. There is, for example, the forest elephant, it was never bred.

http://www.zentralafrika.de/Gorillas--Co/Waldelefanten/

As a breed, it belongs to the genus African elephant. The forest elephant is not a breed.

Animal breeds were and are willingly bred by humans.

You mean a hybrid. e.g. German Shepherd and DAckel crossed.

There are, for example, 2 African elephant races.

Nonsense. The forest elephant is not a breed.

For sure. What is the elephant breed with you?

For sure. What is the elephant breed with you?

He's right. The forest elephant is even a species of its own.

He's right. The forest elephant is even a species of its own.

No, it is the African elephant genus.




That is why the African elephants do not look the same everywhere. In the last century, dozens of elephant breeds have been distinguished by their ear shape or other body features. However, this racial diversity turned out to be unsustainable. The experts have now agreed on only two African elephant subspecies: the steppe elephant (Loxodonta africana africana) and the forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis).

http://www.markuskappeler.ch/tex/texs/waldelefant.html

No, it is the African elephant genus.



http://www.markuskappeler.ch/tex/texs/waldelefant.html

Markus Kappeler's report is from 1988!


The status of the forest elephant as an independent species could be proven by genetic studies (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA-Analyse) in 2002 and 2010. [1] (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldelefant#cite_note-Genomic_DNA_Sequences-1)[2] (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldelefant#cite_note-Patterns-2) According to investigations by Harvard Medical School (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Medical_School) the forest elephants genetically separated themselves three to five million years ago. [3] (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldelefant#cite_note-Zwei_Elefantenarten-3)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldelefant

He's right. The forest elephant is even a species of its own, as is the Indian elephant and the extinct mammoth, which the biology-systematics-shod Dr Mittendrin apparently does not know.

And a long ......... L

You don't have to be a negro.

And a long ......... L

Well, you'd probably have one too short for their women for that. Apparently, the uterus is supposed to be lower in black women. Nature should set it up to better protect this sensitive area from heat. And that's why the men there have longer ......... L!
But I have never been able to test this theory in a heroic self-experiment.: D

Likewise the Indian elephant and the extinct mammoth, which the biology-systematics-shod Dr Mittendrin apparently does not know.

You now want to distract with smoke candles (mammoth).


Here you foolish talker.



That is why the African elephants do not look the same everywhere. In the last century, dozens of elephant breeds have been distinguished by their ear shape or other body features. However, this racial diversity turned out to be unsustainable. The experts have now agreed on only two African elephant subspecies: the steppe elephant (Loxodonta africana africana) and the forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis).





the steppe elephants (Loxodonta africana africana) and the forest elephants (Loxodonta africana cyclotis).

they are races (subspecies) of the species African elephant.

For sure. What is the elephant breed with you? ...?
Which elephant?

And a long ......... LNo subspecies trait!

Markus Kappeler's report is from 1988!


http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldelefant



Subspecies and race are the same.

...?
Which elephant?

But it took a long time. Everything is in previous posts.

... they are races (subspecies) of the species African elephant.Yes what now-races or subspecies ??

Yes what now-races or subspecies ??

Subspecies and race are the same.


49169

But it took a long time. It's all in previous posts. Say again. I don't think so. What breed of elephant are you talking about?

Subspecies and race are the same, no.

Say again. I don't think so. What breed of elephant are you talking about?


Forest elephant or the steppe elephant.

...
That is why the African elephants do not look the same everywhere. In the last century, dozens of elephant breeds have been distinguished by their ear shape or other body features. However, this racial diversity turned out to be unsustainable. The experts have now agreed on only two African elephant subspecies: the steppe elephant (Loxodonta africana africana) and the forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis).



they are races (subspecies) of the species African elephant.
The biological system does not know any races.

No.

49169 this is how it works

The biological system does not know any races.

: muaha: animal races have already been abolished.

No matter how clever you can throw terms around you.

I understand your bullshit ideology.

Breed is the hybrid sheepdog / dachshund.

Say again. I don't think so. Which elephant breed are you talking about? It is possible that the Indians etc. bred working elephant breeds. I don't care that much about elephants to know this detail.

It is possible that the Indians etc. have bred races of working elephants. I don't care that much about elephants to know this detail.
The Asian elephant is divided into 4 RACES.

No breeding.

Distribution:
Within its South Asian range, it is divided into four different geographic races:

• the Indian elephant from India (Elephas maximus indicus),


• the Malaya elephants from Malaysia and Thailand (E. m. Hirsutus),


• the Ceylon elephants of Sri Lanka (E. m. Maximus) and


• the Sumatran elephant of Sumatra (E. m. Sumatranus).






Can be safely crossed with each other.

Indian and African crossed species are particularly viable if not at all.

Such as a Liger lion / tiger

So that you can get to know and understand the correct biological taxonomy of the human species, I set up a classification table:

49169

Superfamily
family
Subfamily
genus
Kind (here is the human)
Subspecies (Here there is no longer any subdivision in humans for presumably ideological reasons, but in the great apes there is already one level higher in the species - why probably ...

Have a smart say but don't recognize that the subspecies also means race.

Humans are not animals, so I prefer the term ethnicity.

However, this also means that people can be completely different: different language, way of life, customs, style of clothing, legal awareness

Humans are not animals, so I prefer the term ethnicity.

However, this also means that people can be completely different: different language, way of life, customs, style of clothing, legal awareness

With ethnicity you circumvent that a little.

When Christian and Islamic Nigerians kill each other, they speak of ethnic conflict, even though they belong to the same race.

Humans are not animals, so I prefer the term ethnicity.

However, this also means that people can be completely different: different language, way of life, customs, style of clothing, legal awareness

lol. A black man can also wear a suit, speak English, live the American way of life and be a judge, that means he belongs to a different ethnic group? What a formidable nonsense.

However, further DNA studies show that the relationships between the African elephants are even more complex. The elephants native to West Africa cannot be classified as forest or savannah elephants, [4] but represent a third species. [5]



Wiki

Nonsense. The forest elephant is not a breed.
But it is a species within the elephant family.

Why is (s) t man not an animal? Is that stupid?
The negro doesn't like the whites either, but what is on the table is eaten there. There is no veganism ... but if humans are not animals, you can eat them.
Or wear it as a jacket, weave a basket out of it, or something, right? Is it actually humanism, do you make compote out of it? Would you have to ask someone who knows.
What is man now? A mushroom, a plant? He didn't shit on earth like he did, did he? Then he would be Kompo (s) t (t) or what now?
Compote or Compost? It has to be something. If it is integrated into the animal kingdom, it would also have to be divided into races. It's like game and white meat.
Game is dark and tastes a bit strong. Because they are always walking around outside and eating dirt or something. One would have to ask the competent authority.
What do you serve with red meat? Rather a red wine or a rose? Do you have to drink white meat with white meat or can it also be a wine, a red one?
How does that actually work with a menu? Light - dark - light - dark. How is it when you don't like negroes at all? Do you have to eat everything here that you don't like? I'm not doing it, nope.

Subspecies and race are the same.

Subspecies and race - yes. But above that is the species. And that was what it was all about. Markus Kappeler was of course not up to date with the latest research in 1988.
But to untangle it:
Order: trunk animals-> family: elephants-> species: African elephant, forest elephant, Asian elephant.
Only the Asian elephant has 3 (possibly 4) living subspecies or races: Sri Lankan elephant, Indian elephant and Sumatran elephant. Most likely also a subspecies, but not 100% recognized, is the Borneo dwarf elephant.

But it is a species within the elephant family.

Subspecies.

Have a smart say but don't recognize that the subspecies also means race.
Do you mean me?

Well, race is a frowned upon term. Biologically correct would be subspecies, or in correct taxonomic terminology "subspecies".

For known reasons, this class has not been used in humans. However, all variations of the type "human" would have to be classified in this class.

But you don't do it. It would be pointless to discuss the reasons. We all know them.

Forest elephant or steppe elephant, these are two different types. A species does not belong to any race. And certainly not two different types. Only individuals within a species. And only if there were races within that species.

Subspecies and race - yes. But above that is the species.


Type: African elephant.



And that was what it was all about. Markus Kappeler was of course not up to date with the latest research in 1988.
But to unravel:
Order: trunk animals-> family: elephants-> species: family is the same genus (would the mammoth also belong to it)



African elephant, forest elephant, Asian elephant. No forest elephant is a subspecies or breed of the African




Only the Asian elephant has 3 (possibly 4) living subspecies or races: Sri Lankan elephant, Indian elephant and Sumatran elephant. Most likely also a subspecies, but not 100% recognized, is the Borneo dwarf elephant.

Already mentioned by me.

They are two different types. A species does not belong to any race. And certainly not two different types. Only individuals within a species. And only if there were races within that species.

There are subspecies or races (there is a third) of the type of African elephant.

It is possible that the Indians etc. have bred races of working elephants ... That would in fact be theoretically possible. But as far as I know it did not take place. As far as I know, they train wild-caught.

Do you mean me?

Well, race is a frowned upon term. Biologically correct would be subspecies, or in correct taxonomic terminology "subspecies".

For known reasons, this class has not been used in humans. However, all variations of the type "human" would have to be classified in this class.

But you don't do it. It would be pointless to discuss the reasons. We all know them.

No not you

We agree: race = subspecies = subspecies


some smart talkers do not

Subspecies.
No, in this case one even speaks of individual species within the "elephant" family:

Briefly looked up at Wiki for the sake of simplicity:


Only three species of the trunk animals live today, all of which belong to the real elephants. These are:

Genus Loxodonta

African elephant (Loxodonta africana)

Forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis)

Genus Elephas Asian elephant (Elephas maximus)

A minority of elephant researchers and cryptozoologists have suggested the pygmy elephant (Loxodonta pumilio) as a species; however, this is not accepted in the professional world. In addition to the large forest elephant, it is said to be a smaller species in the tropical rainforest (Gabon, Congo, Cameroon). Genetic studies on various specimens in the Central African region also did not reveal any evidence of a fourth elephant species. [4]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefanten


And here the biological taxonomy:



Class: Mammals (Mammalia)
Subclass: Higher Mammals (Eutheria)
Superordinate: Afrotheria
Order: Proboscidea
Family: elephants

There are subspecies or races (there is a third) of the type of African elephant. Subspecies are not races, and forest elephants form their own species anyway.