As I said, you're not certified to make a comment either way: Have a look at this: http://io9.com/a-long-anthropological-debate-may-be-on-the-cusp-of-res-512864731 And no, modern non-Africans ARE Homo Sapiens! But the species isn't as rigid as you're implying: it's not a clear cut dichotomy.
Idiots on this board. If a black and a white can have a baby, they share a recent common evolutionary branch. It's that simple. Deny all you want. It's science. More importantly and back to the topic. GGG is ASIAN and the most exciting ASIAN fighter of any era. He's not draining people. He's not a midget accumulating bogus division titles every three pounds.
I'm as certified to make a comment as *you* are. So, you are admitting that modern Non-Africans are *not* Homo-Sapiens Sapiens? Am I reading you correctly?
No, I said modern non-Africans are Homo Sapiens. You should read that link I provided - it's a cursory overview of modern paleoanthropology.
I guess then you don't know what Homo Sapiens are. Let me define the term for you. So AGAIN I ask, to which subspecies of Homo Sapiens do modern Non-Africans belong?
Respectfully disagree - sorry, I'm busy brushing up my knowledge but my understanding is that whilst there are regional variations, in the broader scheme the genetic differences between local and regional populations are actually relatively insignificant. Just as with eye and hair colour, the obviously phenotypical 'racial' differences such as epicathnic folding or skin colour actually comprise an almost insignificant proportion of the human genome. I ain't gonna enter into a debate on the subject right now cos I want to try to keep an open mind rather than simply seeking to reinforce my preconceptions by buttressing a misinformed argument until I investigate further. Suffice to say I understand what you are saying and it seems intuitively correct but it appears that things aren't quite so clear cut. "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population (1) Witherspoon DJ, Wooding S, Rogers AR, et al. (May 2007). "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations". Genetics 176 (1): 358. doi:10.1534/genetics.106.067355. PMC 1893020. PMID 17339205. ' It's just a starting point and the first sentence does acknowledge that given sufficient genetic information individuals can be assigned to a specific population, but the points I have highlighted might start to suggest the complexity of the issue.
I know what Homo Sapiens are. And none - there is no sub species of Sapiens Sapiens - that's why I asked what you meant.
That quotation is correct, but in plain English, and within population genetics, they'd say, for example, that 80% of an individuals genetics is at variance - so for example a single Norwegian could be closer related, genetically, to a Kenyan than to another Norwegian. However, it's the other 20% of the genome that is particular for specific population groups; so the Norwegian would cluster with other Norwegians, singularly, than with any other Kenyan, if that makes sense.
Cisco. I don't think anyone's debating that we're all Homo Sapiens Sapiens... there is some disagreement as to how the species developed into a global population and over the degree of genetic homogenity but with the possible exception of BHops I'm pretty sure we all agree we're humans.