fyi

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Well, probably Africa would have multiple sub-species being Bushman, Pygmies, and Negroid.

Scientific facts do not deal in "probably"

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way.

But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one (I repeat) one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid

So man up and don't chicken out

Are black people a sub species of mankind ?

Y/N

Well, if Science tells us that Plains Coyotes which moved out from the Mid-West some 100 years ago, or less, became separate sub-species by moving, and isolating.
How are Human races not separate sub-species having been divided by 45,000 years, or more?

Are black people a sub-species of mankind ?

Y/ N

It could probably go either way, being that different Human races are probably barely sub-species, yes.

Which other different human races are sub-species?Which is a fallacious statement

Bushman, Pygmies, Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Australoid.

 

[Paul Essien]

It could probably go either way, being that different Human races are probably barely sub-species, yes.

I take that as a tap out. But all guys chicken out at given a direct answer when I ask that question. Thought you might have some balls and give a Y/N. But obviously not.

 

[Moonglow]

Scientific facts do not deal in "probably"

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way.

But yet you throw around concepts that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one (I repeat) one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid

So man up and don't chicken out

Are black people a sub species of mankind ?

Y/N

Well, if Science tells us that Plains Coyotes which moved out from the Mid-West some 100 years ago, or less, became separate sub-species by moving, and isolating.
How are Human races not separate sub-species having been divided by 45,000 years, or more?

Are black people a sub-species of mankind ?

Y/ N

It could probably go either way, being that different Human races are probably barely sub-species, yes.

Which other different human races are sub-species?Which is a fallacious statement

Bushman, Pygmies, Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Australoid.

Being exposed to technology is not the only standards for human development..

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

It could probably go either way, being that different Human races are probably barely sub-species, yes.

I take that as a tap out. But all guys chicken out at given a direct answer when I ask that question. Thought you might have some balls and give a Y/N. But obviously not.

Apparently the Chimpanzee sub-species are both more diverse, and more mixed than Human sub-species.

So, obviously Human races, aren't much different than Chimpanzee sub-species by DNA.

Chimpanzee Subspecies Are Genetically Mixed And More Diverse Than Humans

Chimpanzee Subspecies Are Genetically Mixed And More Diverse Than Humans
Date:
November 8, 1999
Source:
American Association For The Advancement Of Science
Summary:
A new study suggests that chimpanzee subspecies may be more genetically variable than humans and also more closely related to each other--two findings that conflict with some earlier research on chimpanzee genetic diversity.
Share:
FULL STORY

Washington D.C. - A new study suggests that chimpanzee subspecies may be more genetically variable than humans and also more closely related to each other--two findings that conflict with some earlier research on chimpanzee genetic diversity. The study's results

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Well, if Science tells us that Plains Coyotes which moved out from the Mid-West some 100 years ago, or less, became separate sub-species by moving, and isolating.
How are Human races not separate sub-species having been divided by 45,000 years, or more?

Are black people a sub-species of mankind ?

Y/ N

It could probably go either way, being that different Human races are probably barely sub-species, yes.

Which other different human races are sub-species?Which is a fallacious statement

Bushman, Pygmies, Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Australoid.

Being exposed to technology is not the only standards for human development..

What?

 

[Paul Essien]

It could probably go either way, being that different Human races are probably barely sub-species, yes.

I take that as a tap out. But all guys chicken out at given a direct answer when I ask that question. Thought you might have some balls and give a Y/N. But obviously not.

Apparently the Chimpanzee sub-species are both more diverse, and more mixed than Human sub-species.

So, obviously Human races, aren't much different than Chimpanzee sub-species by DNA.

Chimpanzee Subspecies Are Genetically Mixed And More Diverse Than Humans

Chimpanzee Subspecies Are Genetically Mixed And More Diverse Than Humans
Date:
November 8, 1999
Source:
American Association For The Advancement Of Science
Summary:
A new study suggests that chimpanzee subspecies may be more genetically variable than humans and also more closely related to each other--two findings that conflict with some earlier research on chimpanzee genetic diversity.
Share:
FULL STORY

Washington D.C. - A new study suggests that chimpanzee subspecies may be more genetically variable than humans and also more closely related to each other--two findings that conflict with some earlier research on chimpanzee genetic diversity. The study's results

I don't need all the links.

I'm asking very simple and direct question

Yes or No

Are black people a sub species of mankind ?

The fact that you can't give a direct Yes or No answer proves that you don't believe in that you are saying.

 

[IM2]

I’ve seen several recent posts about the fact that black people in Africa sold their own people into slavery. It’s been cited as a basis to declare that black people are also at fault and are therefore just as bad as the white people who enslaved them. I am currently reading “Slaves In The Family,” by Edward Ball. In chapter 7 he gives the most thorough explanation of this I have ever heard.

“The coast of Loango, included a port settlement, Cabinda. The Royal African Company, which brought slaves to Charleston, made the Loango coast its trading base, so much so that the company’s records from the 1720s show that all of its ships going to central Africa during that time listed Cabinda as a destination.

Whites had long ago given up making raids themselves and instead operated forts on the coast known as “factories.” These were heavily armed buying centers to which black slave-handlers delivered their merchandise in exchange for guns, rum, and fabric. The captives brought by the black middlemen to the factories had previously been held by chiefs and headmen farther interior, away from the coast. These chiefs rounded up victims in several ways – by staging raids on villages for the purpose of getting prisoners of war, by punishing people in debt through sale into slavery, and sometimes by selling members of their own tribe for personal profit. With this involvement at the source of the capture business, slavery became a shared venture.

Forced labor was practiced in West Africa before the Europeans began to carry people off, but it was not plantation slavery like that in America. West African slavery consisted of the subjugation of whole villages by invading chiefdoms, which led to arrangements that resembled the vassal societies of feudal Europe. As it was in medieval England, the vanquished were required to make oaths of obedience to a piece of land and to work it, giving tribute to the lords in services and crops but holding on to personal identity. By contrast, American slavery meant the denuding of individuals of all rights and property, one person at a time.

In the Asante kingdom of southern Nigeria, for example, a slave could own property, own a slave him or herself, intermarry with the kin of the ruling family, and be an heir to his or her master – none of which rights were held by captive American blacks. When the Europeans arrived on the African coast, this patriarchal system became rapidly more harsh, and the pace and methods of slave capture were sharpened to suit white demand.”

I have believed and am now even more convinced that American slavery was its own evil, not to be compared to or blamed on anyone else.

If you don't like it there is the door..Now, stop playing codependent's for black victimization, you are not helping, in other words, it's time to stfu about it and stop pointing fingers..You are more of the problem than the word niggah..

She's not the problem here. You are.