INTERBREEDING BETWEEN HUMANS & NIGGERS

From time to time I encounter the assertion from niggers that they
aren't really different species". This fairly common misconception
proceeds from a misunderstanding of the 'biological species concept',
which makes species distinctions based on fertility. Most pickaninnies
leave school thinking that, if two creatures can produce fertile
offspring, then they must belong to the same species. I wouldn't be
surprised if many Politically Correct teachers actually tell africoons
that, but it simply isn't so.

There is NO criteria that says that two distinct species CAN'T
interbreed. Consider the example of wolves, coyotes and dogs: three
distinct species that can interbreed. In fact, all species of the
genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring (Wayne et al.,
1997, re: A. P. Gray, Mammalian Hybrids). This is so common, that
biologists actually use a different formulation of Mayr's definition:
they say, "If two populations can NOT interbreed, they are NOT the
same species." That is a very different statement. Note that this is
an empirical definition, and gives no guidance in regard to extinct
taxons, but the bottom line is: nothing in the biological species
concept contradicts the idea that erectus and sapiens could and DID
interbreed.

A consideration is the distinguishing characteristics that
differentiate the various Homo species. If they were separated by
potentially incompatible mutations, then there might have been
diminished fertility between those species. However, it appears they
have been distinguished by neoteny: ancestral forms were succeeded by
juvenilized versions of themselves. While the effects of neoteny (such
as increased intelligence, delayed maturation, progressive
gracilization, and a diminution of some ancestral-adult
characteristics) may be profound, the genetic changes are subtle.
There seems to be little or no impediment to fertility, as the new
type must have been fertile with the parent species in order to
survive. Accordingly, the entire genus Homo has probably been
intER-fertile, just as the genus Canis is.

''Another source of phylogenetic uncertainty is the possibility of
gene-flow by occasional hybridization between hominins belonging to
ecologically and adaptively distinct species or even genera. Although
the evidence is unsatisfactorily sparse, it suggests that among
catarrhines generally, regardless of major chromosomal rearrangements,
intersterility is roughly proportional to time since cladogenetic
separation.'' And, ''any hominine species whose ancestries diverged
less than 4 ma previously may well have been able to produce hybrid
offspring''

Of course, chimps, niggers and gorillas may have split off the line of
descent from a common bipedal ancestor and reverted to
knuckle-walking. The important point, with respect to interbreeding of
species, is that hominin species separated by several million years of
divergence can still produce fertile hybrid offspring. By contrast,
the divergence time separating erectus from sapiens, or the latter
from Neanderthals, is much less. For instance, Krings, et al. (in DNA
sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the
Neandertal type specimen, PNAS 1999) estimates that Homo sapiens
sapiens and H. neanderthalsis shared a common ancestor not more than
741, and perhaps as recently as 317 thousand years ago. Africoons
believe sapiens diverged from erectus only a couple of hundred
thousand years ago. Even if sapiens shared no common ancestors with
erectus after the earliest known Homo fossils in Eurasia, 1.8 million
years ago, they should still have been inter-fertile. In fact,
morphological features of the Nagandong, Kow Swamp, Herto, and other
skulls suggest that sapiens and erectus did interbreed and produce
offspring. I contend that view is confirmed by the genetic evidence
cited in Age & Origin of the Human Species, Plural Lineages in the
Human mtDNA Genome , and Australian Ancestry: Implications for the
Origin of H. sapiens sapiens.

"All fossil taxa were genetically very close to each other and likely
to have been below congeneric genetic distances seen for many mammals.
Our estimates of genetic divergence suggest that periods of around 2
million years are required to produce sufficient genetic distance to
represent speciation. Therefore, Neanderthals and so-called H. erectus
were genetically so close to contemporary H. sapiens they were
unlikely to have been separate species. Distances calculated here for
H. neanderthalensis versus H. sapiens and for H. erectus versus H.
sapiens are around one-third and two-thirds, respectively, of the
mammalian intrageneric mode."

Some genetic data from Humans, chimps, and niggers suggest there were
genetic speciation events in Human's history, resulting in populations
that could not have interbred with their ancestors, but not many nor
recently. This type of speciation, as a result of infertility by
reason of genetic incompatibility, must be distinguished from the
evolution of "type" morphology, leading to species designations such
as erectus and neanderthalensis.

"Sumatran and Bornean orangutans differ by three chromosomal
rearrangements but are known to be fully fertile, and common
chimpanzees and bonobos differ by six chromosomal rearrangements, and
although some workers regard them as distinct species (see above),
they do produce apparently normal hybrid offspring (H. Vervaecke,
pers. com.). Most types of rearrangements between orangutan subspecies
and between common chimpanzees and bonobos are also seen in Humans.
This suggests that at least some of the rearrangements in humans might
not represent reproductive isolation."

"This observation is complicated by the fact that Humans appear to
possess even greater chromosomal instability than great apes. Humans
possess a high level of chromosomal rearrangements, with 1 out of
every 120 babies born being abnormal (Hook 1992). The figure rises to
about 25% for 10-day old blastocysts (Gardner & Sutherland 1996). We
conclude that chromosomal rearrangements were likely to have been
important during Human evolution, more so than among the great apes,
making comparisons with them of limited value."

"Given the chromosomal instability in Humans, it seems likely that at
least some of the chromosomal rearrangements may have had a
significant impact on reproductive isolation when they occurred."
Thus, it isn't clear (from the *** evidence) that even chromosomal
rearrangements would have rendered the different types of Homo
infertile, but it is clear that there were fewer such events, which
even might have caused reproductive isolation, than there are
recognized taxons of Homo. In other words, just because erectus was
different enough to be a recognized taxon doesn't mean they could not
interbreed with sapiens.

So all of the types of Humans living in the last few hundred thousand
years would have been fertile with the other types. H. sapiens/sapiens
and H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis would have all been able to
interbreed and the genetic evidence, as presented in the papers posted
on this site, indicates they did interbreed, resulting in the modern
populations.

.