Is ‘speciesism’ as bad as racism or sexism?

[Narz]

There is more genetic difference between two chimpanzees of different troops in the same forest than two randomly selected humans from anywhere in the world.

Iirc there's also more similarly (DNA wise) between a male human and male chimp than between a male and female human

 

[Senethro]

Iirc there's also more similarly (DNA wise) between a male human and male chimp than between a male and female human

Not by sensible measures.

 

[Narz]

I'm not a geneticist, can you elaborate or how to 'sensibly' compare DNA?

 

[Crezth]

Iirc there's also more similarly (DNA wise) between a male human and male chimp than between a male and female human

I gotta say the worst thing about this website is that everyone here has to pretend to be respectful of the opinion you posted here despite common sense and the deep human need to hoot and jeer. Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

I'm not a geneticist, can you elaborate or how to 'sensibly' compare DNA?

So setting aside the head-bashing notion that one would bring up the thing they just heard somewhere, that male humans and chimpanzees have more similar DNA than with their womenfolk, and then teeter onto the heels to go "oh but I guess I really know nothing about it at all,"

the NUMBER ONE thing you can go by for how REALLY SIMILAR DNA is across or between members of a species is the exact criteria of the SPECIES. Whatever metric is being used to compare male human and chimpanzee DNA, which you don't even bother sharing, because you don't know, so we can't address it - the criteria of the SPECIES makes it an irrelevant question.

The criteria of the species is simply this: can you breed with another individual and produce another member of the species? Yes? Then you both and all three belong. Human of your vaunted men and women categories have been accomplishing this pretty regularly since the dawn of time.

TEST #2: THE "LOOK" TEST. DO THEY "LOOK" SIMILAR?

Do human men look more like THIS



or THIS



Wrong answers only

 

[banzay13]

I gotta say the worst thing about this website is that everyone here has to pretend to be respectful of the opinion you posted here despite common sense and the deep human need to hoot and jeer.

So setting aside the head-bashing notion that one would bring up the thing they just heard somewhere, that male humans and chimpanzees have more similar DNA than with their womenfolk, and then teeter onto the heels to go "oh but I guess I really know nothing about it at all,"

the NUMBER ONE thing you can go by for how REALLY SIMILAR DNA is across or between members of a species is the exact criteria of the SPECIES. Whatever metric is being used to compare male human and chimpanzee DNA, which you don't even bother sharing, because you don't know, so we can't address it - the criteria of the SPECIES makes it an irrelevant question.

The criteria of the species is simply this: can you breed with another individual and produce another member of the species? Yes? Then you both and all three belong. Human of your vaunted men and women categories have been accomplishing this pretty regularly since the dawn of time.

TEST #2: THE "LOOK" TEST. DO THEY "LOOK" SIMILAR?

Do human men look more like THIS

View attachment 667937

or THIS

View attachment 667939

Wrong answers only

in the Russian blogger's article I linked to - he mentioned that crossbreeding Neanderthals and Denisovans with Cro-Magnons produced infertile men. And gene transfer went down the maternal line. Of course this is not 100% known.

 

[Senethro]

I'm not a geneticist, can you elaborate or how to 'sensibly' compare DNA?

If we consider the genomes as having both a physical arrangement, an information content (what letters are present), and a functional meaning (what it does), then by a very few superficial measures there are features in the physical arrangement that are shared between male mammals.

But given that its the information content and function of DNA that makes it interesting, who cares?

 

[Hygro]

That does not seem to make any logical sense... care to provide a source for this?

EDIT: Well, I found this:

Chimps show much greater genetic diversity than humans | University of Oxford

www.ox.ac.uk

Pretty interesting, if not quite the original claim

Thanks. I repeated it from something I heard rather than read, which as always in that situation, wasn’t exact.

 

[gay_Aleks]

It is somewhat impressive to see laughable usage of genetics to justify the continued existence not only of racial structures, but also of patriarchal violence.

 

[schlaufuchs]

It is somewhat impressive to see laughable usage of genetics to justify the continued existence not only of racial structures, but also of patriarchal violence.

an exquisite example of oppositional sexism taken to its logical extreme