d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Should Humans Be Grouped As Same Species? > Or Should We Not Define Us As A Single?
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 13,829
Joined: Apr 15 2006
Gold: 367.00
Apr 9 2013 11:40am
Quote (noob_whacker @ Apr 9 2013 11:50am)
Subspecies are animal groups that are related, can interbreed, and yet have characteristics that make them distinct from one another. Two basic ingredients are critical to the development of separate subspecies: isolation and time. Unlike most animals, humans are a relatively young species and we are extremely mobile, so we simply haven't evolved into different subspecies.

The earliest hominids evolved from apes about 5 million years ago, but modern humans (Homo sapien sapiens) didn't emerge until 150,000-200,000 years ago in eastern Africa, where we spent most of our evolution together as a species. Our species first left Africa only about 50,000-100,000 years ago and quickly spread across the entire world. All of us are descended from these recent African ancestors.

Many other animal species have been around much longer or they have shorter life spans, so they've had many more opportunities to accumulate genetic variants. Penguins, for example, have twice as much genetic diversity as humans. Fruit flies have 10 times as much. Even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, has been around at least several million years. There's more genetic diversity within a group of chimps on a single hillside in Gomba than in the entire human species.

Domesticated animals such as dogs also have a lot of genetic diversity, but this is mostly due to selective breeding under controlled conditions. Humans, on the other hand, have always mixed freely and widely. As a result, we're all mongrels: Eighty-five percent of all human variation can be found in any local population, whether they be Kurds, Icelanders, Papua New Guineans, or Mongolians. Ninety-four percent can be found on any continent.

Animals are also limited by habitat and geographical features such as rivers and canyons, so it is easy for groups to become isolated and genetically distinct from one another. Humans, on the other hand, are much more adaptable and have not been limited by geography in the same way. Early on, we could ford rivers, cross canyons, move great distances over a relatively short time, and modify our environment to fit our needs. We are also extremely mobile as a species. Even the remotest island tribe in the Pacific originally came from elsewhere and maintained some contact with neighboring groups.

We may think global migration is a recent phenomenon, but it has characterized most of human history. Whether we're moving halfway around the world or from one village to another, the passage of genes takes place under many circumstances, large scale and small: migration, wars, trade, slave-taking, rape, and exogamous marriage (marriage with "outsiders").

It takes a long time to accumulate a lot of genetic variation, because new variants arise only through mutation - copying errors from one generation to the next. On the other hand, it takes just a very small amount of migration - one individual in each generation moving from one village to another and reproducing - to prevent groups from becoming genetically distinct or isolated. Humans just haven't evolved into distinct subgroups.


Ok?
Member
Posts: 2,664
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
Apr 9 2013 12:49pm
what the hell this shit
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Apr 9 2013 02:49pm
Quote (Azrad @ Apr 8 2013 05:24pm)
The definition of a species is a group of animals that can interbreed and produce viable offspring (the offspring can breed as well). Using this definition, Eskimos, Asians, Africans, Europeans, and all the others are certainly the same species.

Sometimes with phenomenon such as ring species the definition can get murky, but it is not murky with human beings.


False. There can be species divides from geography or time. There are different species that can produce viable offspring. 'Species' is a very ambiguous concept.
Member
Posts: 1,519
Joined: Apr 4 2010
Gold: 167.50
Apr 9 2013 02:50pm
:banana:
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
Apr 9 2013 03:02pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Apr 9 2013 01:49pm)
False. There can be species divides from geography or time. There are different species that can produce viable offspring. 'Species' is a very ambiguous concept.



so you didn't read this part?
Quote (Azrad @ Apr 8 2013 04:24pm)
Sometimes with phenomenon such as ring species the definition can get murky, but it is not murky with human beings.


Member
Posts: 40,915
Joined: Jul 8 2009
Gold: 0.00
Apr 9 2013 04:16pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Apr 9 2013 02:49pm)
False. There can be species divides from geography or time. There are different species that can produce viable offspring. 'Species' is a very ambiguous concept.


Generally when this happens there is a case of classification error through taxonomy and the only way to know for certain is with genetic testing or a little bow-chica-bow-wow. The concept you're brushing on is speculation through geographic barriers, temporal barriers, and so on that can push a divergence on an evolutionary scale. Can you bring those members back together and produce a viable offspring? Sometimes, yes. But these 'fringe' species, more likely than not, produce a non-viable hybrid OR are not by definition different enough genetically to be classified as a new specie.

As our technology changes to pinpoint these discrepancies, so does the taxonomic scale in which it operates.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Apr 9 2013 06:23pm
Quote (Azrad @ Apr 9 2013 03:02pm)
so you didn't read this part?


Ah. Sorry.

Quote (piddywiffle @ Apr 9 2013 04:16pm)
Generally when this happens there is a case of classification error through taxonomy and the only way to know for certain is with genetic testing or a little bow-chica-bow-wow.  The concept you're brushing on is speculation through geographic barriers, temporal barriers, and so on that can push a divergence on an evolutionary scale.  Can you bring those members back together and produce a viable offspring?  Sometimes, yes.  But these 'fringe' species, more likely than not, produce a non-viable hybrid OR are not by definition different enough genetically to be classified as a new specie.

As our technology changes to pinpoint these discrepancies, so does the taxonomic scale in which it operates.


Yes, I agree.
Member
Posts: 10,780
Joined: Jul 22 2011
Gold: 655.00
Apr 9 2013 11:45pm
Quote (Azrad @ Apr 8 2013 07:24pm)
The definition of a species is a group of animals that can interbreed and produce viable offspring (the offspring can breed as well). Using this definition, Eskimos, Asians, Africans, Europeans, and all the others are certainly the same species.

Sometimes with phenomenon such as ring species the definition can get murky, but it is not murky with human beings.


so given the genetic evidence of homo sapiens mating with neaderthals and producing viable offspring, should we also consider neaderthals the same species?
Member
Posts: 40,915
Joined: Jul 8 2009
Gold: 0.00
Apr 10 2013 12:11am
Quote (Ylem122 @ Apr 9 2013 11:45pm)
so given the genetic evidence of homo sapiens mating with neaderthals and producing viable offspring, should we also consider neaderthals the same species?


The rhetoric behind that is shifting in lieu of recent genetic evidence. Anymore they are (generally) regarded as a subspecies or the same species.

Most researchers have adopted the Genus/Specie to be Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

There is still some debate behind all of this, but it is shifting towards what I have just said.

This post was edited by piddywiffle on Apr 10 2013 12:13am
Member
Posts: 10,780
Joined: Jul 22 2011
Gold: 655.00
Apr 10 2013 12:14am
Quote (piddywiffle @ Apr 10 2013 02:11am)
The rhetoric behind that is shifting in lieu of recent genetic evidence. Anymore they are (generally) regarded as a subspecies or the same species.

Most researchers have adopted the Genus/Specie to be Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

There is still some debate behind all of this, but it is shifting towards what I have just said.


so yes, Eskimos, Asians, Africans, Europeans, neanderthals, and all the others are the same species?
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll