Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Homo sapien subspecies?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Genetic analysis has revealed that the concept of race is essentially an artificial construct demonstrating that we are definitely a single species just as evolutionary theory has said from the very start.
    Define race.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      Define race.
      I'm talking about how science uses it today although in Darwin's day it often meant something like varieties such as when he talks about "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" in "On the Origin of Species"

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        I'm talking about how science uses it today although in Darwin's day it often meant something like varieties such as when he talks about "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" in "On the Origin of Species"
        Well, "science" has replaced it with "population" or "population group", probably to avoid censorship and/or confusion, but the basic concept (that of an extended family) has remained more or less the same. I'm not sure changing words around = artificial construct.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #19
          There's a pretty good (and long) write up at Wiki on the historical concepts of "race" as it applies to humans.

          Historical race concepts

          The earliest uses were from Biblical references, based on the idea that humans of different skin colors and different morphological features (i.e eyes with epicanthic folds) came from the three sons of Noah. After Darwin's OOS one common view was that the different human "races" all had unique origins instead of all being related by common descent. Darwin was one of the first to realize that "race" as applied to humans was just a social construct and that the physical differences that defined "races" were superficial at best. Discoveries in genetics have now confirmed his idea, we are all one "race" - the human race.

          Comment


          • #20
            The problem over the recent history of paleontology is that we had a number of more ape like humanoid fossils, ie Leakey's discoveries, but in the past 100,000 to 500,000 years we lacked clear evidence of transitional fossils of ancestors that were closer to human physically and intelligent behavior. In the past 20 to 30 years more fossils and genetic evidence of Neanderthals placed them closed to humans as a subspecies, and more discoveries of huminin ancestors with the ability to make fire, possible speech, and social organization within the last 500,000 years.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
              There's a pretty good (and long) write up at Wiki on the historical concepts of "race" as it applies to humans.

              Historical race concepts

              The earliest uses were from Biblical references, based on the idea that humans of different skin colors and different morphological features (i.e eyes with epicanthic folds) came from the three sons of Noah. After Darwin's OOS one common view was that the different human "races" all had unique origins instead of all being related by common descent. Darwin was one of the first to realize that "race" as applied to humans was just a social construct and that the physical differences that defined "races" were superficial at best. Discoveries in genetics have now confirmed his idea, we are all one "race" - the human race.
              It was in the "Descent of Man" that Darwin wrote of the various races of man prior to that he spoke very little about humanity.

              Source: Descent of Man, chapter 7


              Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

              © Copyright Original Source



              First note how he equates species and race here. This is important since one of Darwin's most radical ideas was to insist that all of mankind is but one species descended from a common ancestor (which is the Christian view as well although I don't think he necessarily meant Adam and Eve ). He received a lot of grief over this especially from racists like Agassiz who maintained that the races were created separately and from others who were horrified that whites were even the same species as blacks.

              In fact, in 1863 Darwin’s supporters rallied against the view proposed by the Anthropological Society of London that “Negroes” were a separate, inferior species that deserved to be enslaved.

              Second, Darwin seems to be subtly (or not so subtly) mocking the idea of dividing humanity up into two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-two, sixty, sixty-three or however many "races" as other "capable judges" have done. And note that those who were sub-dividing humanity up in such a manner were generally creationists of one stripe or another.

              Third, for the most part it appears that Darwin didn't like to describe humans as belonging to different races which is why he often wrote about the "so-called races" of man or men. Two quick examples:
              "It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men."

              "So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated"

              Though he still employed the term probably because of its common usage.

              Fourth, notice how he points out the problem with even trying to divide humanity into separate races in "that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."

              As already pointed out, modern genetic studies have confirmed Darwin's misgivings having demonstrated that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically. IOW, genetic analysis has revealed that the vast majority of variation between humans correlates little, if at all, with any supposed racial boundaries.

              Meaning that all humans are only one biological race which has led modern biologists to conclude that race isn't a valid biological classification

              Finally, questions occasionally arise concerning his usage of the term savages but Darwin was merely employing the standard lexicon of his time. It was a term that everyone, from Popes to Presidents, used. Further, it should be noted that in a few cases the tribes encountered were incredibly savage. A few were cannibals for instance.

              Moreover, he was referring to cultures not genetic differences as he noted that all societies, both great and small, have arisen from "savages" and "barbarians."

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                Charles Darwin did not clearly differentiate between races, varieties nor subspecies in his works. He did describes some variation among Finches in the Galapagos that were geographically isolated and likely subspecies. Geographic and environment isolation are key factors in developing subspecies and over time these subspecies may become species. By 1947 in David Lack's Darwin's Finches, the evolution concepts expressed by Charles Darwin were more clearly described as subspecies.

                The hypothetical 'bottle neck' extinction event ~68,000 years ago (Mount Toba eruption?) reduced the human population to ~3,000 to ~10.000, and possibly caused other subspecies to become extinct or weakened in the case of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The remaining Neanderthals were likely absorbed and/or became extinct due to environmental changes. Recent genetic research has established that Neanderthals were not a separate species.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-24-2014, 08:10 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The small huminin Homo (sapiens) floresiensis found on Flores Island which died out 20,0000 years old possibly represents another subspecies. At present they are considered a separate species.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    What level of variation would it take to constitute a subspecies or separate species? It seems rather fluid to me.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      What level of variation would it take to constitute a subspecies or separate species? It seems rather fluid to me.
                      That's because it IS fluid. Species are notoriously hard to determine, though in multicellular organisms utilizing sexual reproduction, this rule of thumb works pretty well:

                      Source: Ernst Mayr

                      groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups

                      © Copyright Original Source




                      Of course, that doesn't help us with single-celled organisms or those who use asexual reproduction. For those, we can use the more broad "populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity". Check out this wiki article as a good jumping off point: Difficulty of defining species and identifying particular species.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                        That's because it IS fluid. Species are notoriously hard to determine, though in multicellular organisms utilizing sexual reproduction, this rule of thumb works pretty well:

                        Source: Ernst Mayr

                        groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups

                        © Copyright Original Source




                        Of course, that doesn't help us with single-celled organisms or those who use asexual reproduction. For those, we can use the more broad "populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity". Check out this wiki article as a good jumping off point: Difficulty of defining species and identifying particular species.
                        In biology a subspecies is a distinct subdivision of a main population that is usually geographically isolated but that still maintains at least a small amount of genetic intermixing with the main population. As Carrikature noted, when such a subgroup should be defined as a subspecies is somewhat subjective and notoriously hard to precisely determine.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          In biology a subspecies is a distinct subdivision of a main population that is usually geographically isolated but that still maintains at least a small amount of genetic intermixing with the main population. As Carrikature noted, when such a subgroup should be defined as a subspecies is somewhat subjective and notoriously hard to precisely determine.
                          It is best to say capable of successful interbreeding between populations of different subspecies, not 'small.' Interbreeding between closely related species is usually not completely successful. The best example of the difference between species and subspecies of Equus genus where we have species living, and a long detailed evidence of extinct species showing the evolution of the Equus genus. There are several closely related species such as horses, donkeys and zebras, which can interbred, but not normally successfully with mostly infertile offspring. Also, one key difference is different species normally will not interbreed in the wild
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            The term "missing link" is an outdated expression first coined way back in 1851 by naturalist Charles Lyell . Lyell used it when describing abrupt changes in fossil types he discovered in adjacent layers of sediment. In the years immediately after Origin Of Species was published it was picked up by those critical of Darwinism to mean the undiscovered hypothetical species between humans and apes. The term hasn't appeared as a serious scientific description in over a hundred years. However to this day uneducated media people still love its sensationalism value. That's why we still get clueless news reporters gushing about the "missing link" to describe any sort of transitional fossil discovery.
                            Here's an entertaining popular account I came across on a friend's blog today:

                            http://observationdeck.io9.com/evolu...11/@rtgonzalez
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              Here's an entertaining popular account I came across on a friend's blog today:

                              http://observationdeck.io9.com/evolu...11/@rtgonzalez
                              That's quite entertaining. Sometimes snark is a valuable teaching tool.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Outis View Post
                                That's quite entertaining. Sometimes snark is a valuable teaching tool.
                                Maybe in a literature class on humor.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X