Are races actually human subspecies?

I guess race is more of a sociological term whereas subspecies is a biological term.

While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in thescientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive^[9] or simplistic way,^[15] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.^[16][17]

No. Different skin, hair, and eye colours are called variation in biology. "Subspecies" isn't even related to this.

And race is a fairly modern construct.

Oh comicvine, you're still the same stormfront wannabe I always knew you were.

we ain't nothin' but mammals.

Genetically there is only one human race. Social and political science shows us that it's entirely a human construct.

no they are not that diffrent, to call it sub species. but maybe like different categories in the same species,as in breeds .

dachshund ,grate Dane and African wild dogs are all dogs, but differ in many ways.

...So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel

@jake_fury: some of us cannibals.

Pretty much this. Humans did not have enough time in geologic scale to have different species. So we are all equal (our DNA is basically the same....)

Not even close

Lol, no.

Nay.

Uh, no.

How could a speed-based competition be a human subspecies?

Lol.

No?

I can't wait to see the places this thread goes.

@modernww2fare Any reason why you tagged or mentioned me in this thread?

To get your opinion

The answer is no.

No.

We can breed and produce fertile offspring, so we are the same species.

I wouldn't say so, what we have is one Homo Sapiens species that's migrated all over the world and adapted to the conditions of the area they live in over the generations.

That said, Homo Sapiens is in of itself a subspecies coming from the same family tree as the Neanderthals and chimpanzees.

Essentially, yes, that's what Biology gives as a general rule of the thumb.

Note the term "rule of the thumb", because my understanding is that Biology does not have a definite yes-no rule.

In most definitions of the word "species", your statement applies.

Of course, there will be certain groups that would try to redefine the word "species" and claim that black people are a separate species from those of fair-skinned people, etc etc

@donatellorawks:

An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

-biology-online.org

I'd say all humans fill both of the criteria.

However, I agree, biology is imo the softest hard science, which is why I chose to not study it. Interbreeding is the rule of thumb, not a clear cut decider. However... rules of thumbs are rules of thumbs for a reason.

@ashildr000: There was absolutely no need to post something like that. None. Don't post racially inflammatory comments of that nature again.

Yes. All the races of the world predominantly spent most of their evolution in different climates and environments, thus causing them to have different attributes. It's weird that we can accept that retrievers and bulldogs are two different types of dogs with differences in attributes....but acknowledging that Sub saharan africans and Eastern Asians are two different types of humans?? No way, you must be a racist!

It's a thread with a stupid topic. LOL. But, nah. Races aren't a subspecies. That doesn't even make sense.

/thread

No.

I think this keeps getting ghostbumped

@modernww2fare Why are you bumping this asinine thread? Especially when you deleted the OP. It makes no sense.