- Joined
- Dec 1, 2025
- Messages
- 1,781
- Time Online
- 4d 18h
- Reputation
- 2,796
>The necessary pre condition for someone to be a homo sapien species is they have to have a lineage that leads from one species to homo sapien,obviously. Ie. The species before you, was either denisovans or Neanderthals. (That is the necessary pre condition that needs to be met)
Africans do not meet this necessary precondition since they have no denisovan or Neanderthal DNA and instead have archaic hominid DNA which include homo naledi, homo erectus, homo hedielbergensis,etc. (discluding Neanderthals and denisovans) matter of fact. Africans have the least amount of presented homo sapien DNA.
Africans have up to 20% archaic hominid DNA, which means they have 0.1% genetic difference to a human.
Asians have 5% denisovan DNA which is a 0.025% genetic difference to a human.
Europeans have 1-2% Neanderthal DNA which is a 0.005-0.01% genetic difference. (This means Europeans are most like humans obv lol)
Now.. 0.1% on paper is nothing. But remember, chimps only have a 1% genetic difference with humans. Neanderthals only have 0.12% difference with humans. Homo sapien idaltus (sub species of Homo sapiens from 160,000 years ago) have likely less than a 0.1% difference. We are more closely related to an archaic subspecies of homo sapien than we are to sub Saharan Africans with strong non sapien archaic lineage.
That is because we share <0.1% genetic difference with homo sapien idaltus
And we share >0.1% genetic difference with Africans. Logically speaking that means from an empiricist/atheist pov Africans are not humans or atleast are only a subspecies of humans lest we change the precondition of what is necessary to be a homosapien or have utterances that justify the ends through means of changing the definition. (word concept fallacy would apply)
Thankfully I’m not an empiricist nor atheist so I disagree. God made us all human and equal.. Ofc more liberal sources will use soft sciences to disagree with the empiricist view I presented with hard sciences but that’s putting forward an invalid condition which is unfortunately ad hoc.
Africans do not meet this necessary precondition since they have no denisovan or Neanderthal DNA and instead have archaic hominid DNA which include homo naledi, homo erectus, homo hedielbergensis,etc. (discluding Neanderthals and denisovans) matter of fact. Africans have the least amount of presented homo sapien DNA.
Africans have up to 20% archaic hominid DNA, which means they have 0.1% genetic difference to a human.
Asians have 5% denisovan DNA which is a 0.025% genetic difference to a human.
Europeans have 1-2% Neanderthal DNA which is a 0.005-0.01% genetic difference. (This means Europeans are most like humans obv lol)
Now.. 0.1% on paper is nothing. But remember, chimps only have a 1% genetic difference with humans. Neanderthals only have 0.12% difference with humans. Homo sapien idaltus (sub species of Homo sapiens from 160,000 years ago) have likely less than a 0.1% difference. We are more closely related to an archaic subspecies of homo sapien than we are to sub Saharan Africans with strong non sapien archaic lineage.
That is because we share <0.1% genetic difference with homo sapien idaltus
And we share >0.1% genetic difference with Africans. Logically speaking that means from an empiricist/atheist pov Africans are not humans or atleast are only a subspecies of humans lest we change the precondition of what is necessary to be a homosapien or have utterances that justify the ends through means of changing the definition. (word concept fallacy would apply)
Thankfully I’m not an empiricist nor atheist so I disagree. God made us all human and equal.. Ofc more liberal sources will use soft sciences to disagree with the empiricist view I presented with hard sciences but that’s putting forward an invalid condition which is unfortunately ad hoc.
