Can humans be divided ito subspecies?

Thanks, Setanta - really helpful. But one further question arising from your information on sexual isolation:

a. What is it?(!)
b. If it is the idea that the species Homo sapiens, already fully evolved and each alike to the other, spread all over the world and that racial difference occurred then and that, therefore, being very near descendents of the single race type human, can still interbreed, then of course I concur.

However, can Tibetan partridges and Grey partridges not interbreed? All that differentiates them are a few extra black and white feathers on the former, yet they are given separate species names.

Also, your analogy with horses, ass and mules is not quite what I'm getting at. Horses and zebras are different species. Within the species of horses themselves (Equus ferus as opposed to Equus quaggus, ie zebras) you can find Equus ferus przewalskii (a wild horse) and Equus ferus caballus (the domestic horse). These are distinct subspecies which are related and can breed, but are dealt with differently in taxonomy: They are not considered "the same".

(PS Thanks again for an interesting first post. Shame you let yourself down with the subsequent ramblings. It seems pretty immature and simplistic to revert to claims of racism. As far as I understand it, racism means suggesting one race is better than another. As far as I can see, I have not done this in any posts. I am not suggesting zebras are better than horses either, just in case the above post of mine has confused you too.)

Not sure what your duck thing has to do with anything.


Perdix hodgsoniae

Perdix perdix

The animals above are same genus, different species in taxonomy. Plumage is all that differentiates the two.


Equus ferus caballus

Equus ferus przewalskii

The animals above are same genus, same species, different subspecies. They can interbreed but appear different.

I find this a very similar state of affairs...





Again, "plumage" differs, they look different, can interbreed yet, as far as taxonomy is concerned, they are identical. I just don't get it.

and those boyos are all circumcised.

Joe(made you look)Nation

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/232124/gestation


http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2818820

Now the honest-to-god racist bitch has arrived . . .

Youre thinking Anatidae arent you?. Id go more with Gaviae

If you're so smart, why does your post contain misspellings and grammatical mistakes?

Regarding your reference to Neanderthal DNA, you might find the following of interest.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8660940.stm

when Snate Paabo first came through with a partila decooding of Neanderthal DNZ, he published based upon only about 300 sequences. This was in 1998. Since then, hes been able to (with help from paleogeneticists from Pann State who developed a better cleanup of the pepsin matrices) sequence an almost complete Neanderthal genome, and theyve pushed back an effective date for extraction of viable DNA in the process.
Premature Publication and therefore false conclusions are alays out there but we all like the entertainment value.
It stood to reason that SOME percentage of neanderthal DNA was probable , even if they shared a common ancestor as their only contact.

We are agreeing that Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens could interbreed. Thus, taxonomically speaking, we have two separate species (neanderthalensis and sapiens) who share a genus (Homo). Despite being very largely similar, none would disagree that they have enough physical and anatomical differences to warrant different taxonomical titles.

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo sapiens

It is clear that all of the humans on the planet at present are descended from Homo sapiens. But that does not mean evolution and mutation stopped since they spread throughout the world. Is there no-one out there who can explain why the very apparent and marked differences between the humans on the planet at present don't require formal classification as subspecies?





I believe there is as much physical difference between an inuit and a Maasai tribesman as there is between Perdix perdix and Perdix hodgsoniae, Equus ferus caballus and Equus ferus przewalskii, and Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens.

Yet all are dealt with differently in taxonomy. Why?

God, the stupidity here is incredible. A bay and a roan are different colors, but they are still both Equus ferus caballus. We're talking mammals here, not birds with distinctive plumage.

The image i posted above is not a duck (sheesh). It's an image of gavia gaviidae--also known as the common loon. Maybe the nickel will drop for you now.

Having been more than a dozen times in Neanderthal, I've qualified as homo sapiens neanderthalensis ...

Sorry, but you are wrong. Equus ferus caballus and Equus ferus przewalskii are separate subspecies. I believe stature and skeletal proportion was what led to the decision among taxonomists to make the two different. Colour did not come into it. And this is my point with humans: There are indisputable skeletal differences between a Maasai tribesman and a Pygmy.



The individuals in the above photo are all descended from the African Homo sapiens who spread through the world. In the interim, these Homo sapiens have evolved and mutated substantially. They can all interbreed but warrant, in my view, separate subspecies status. Just look at the photo. If this was any other animal on the planet, a difference in subspecies status would be considered obvious.

So why are they all simply Homo sapiens? See if you can answer the question maturely without being rude.

Good joke with the duck thing.

It's not a duck, dipshit, it's a loon, and it represents you. Roan and bay are two colors of domestic animals, and it doesn't refer to separate species or subspecies. But it just doesn't sink in with you. If you want the rudeness to stop, stop posting bullshit which is a failed attaempt to make it appear that you know what you're talking about. You don't. Your remarks are of a racist character, and having also read you vicious Michael Jackson "joke" and your remark to the effect that Italy is the best country to live in, if you're a white male, i have come to the conclusion that you're a white supremecist, and a racist. You get no respect from me. Don't try to get on your high horse about maturity, your thesis is infantile, and so is your presentation.

Good work, Columbo.

Try to stay focused though.

How is this racist? At no point have I said one race is better than another. My sister's boyfriend is black. We get on really well. I had a Chinese girlfriend for a bit at uni (I still find Asians really attractive - it borders on a fetish actually - worries me sometimes, but that's by the by). When asked which country was the best to live in in a thread, I answered Italy. I like pasta. Pizza's good too. I apologise for this if it is race hate. I had no idea this was so. Which country does one choose in order to be PC?

Seriously, let's stay focused. Setanta, if you want to discuss racism, go elsewhere. I genuinely only want to hear from biologists about why all types of Homo sapien on the planet today are simply called Homo sapien. There must be plenty of threads for you if you want to talk about race hate.

And take your ******* duck with you.

Actually, the plural of homo sapiens is homines sapientes ...

It's racist, Sherlock, because you're attempting to claim that members of h. sapiens sapiens are different species or "subspecies" because of differences in physical size or skin color. I am very well focused, clown. I'm focused on pointing out how puerile and racist your thesis is. I'm here talking about race hate because the progeniture of race hate is the very proposition that there are different races of humans in the first place.

When you answered Italy, you didn't say a thing about pasta or pizza. This what you wrote:



You shouldn't try to bullshit people when it's so easy to find exactly what you did write. You're attemping to throw up a screen of straw men, but it's not working. I haven't claimed that this is race hate, i am saying that the proposition that there are different species or "subspecies" of humans is the foundation for racism. Try to stay focused, Bubba.

You utter spaz. That quote of mine shows how anti racism I am. It's a comment on how racist and sexist Italy is as a country (and how awful its TV is). I was saying that Italy is my favourite but that it is by no means perfect - it's only good if you are a white male. I'm from England. The very fact I chose a different country in the first place shows I'm no xenophobe.

Enough with petty squabbles about racism now. This thread is not just about skin colour. IT'S ABOUT ALL PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HUMANS. I don't even think of humans as being "better" than horses or partridges or even your little duck friend, let alone one human better than another. They are just another animal.

My point is that if we look at the humans on the planet objectively, coldly from the outside, the differences between them all, in my view are comparable to the differences between other animals which have been given separate subspecies status, like Equus ferus caballus and Equus ferus przewalskii. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM ANOTHER ANIMAL, or place them in a rank, or anything. It simply recognises small physical differences in the nomenclature of animals. Why are humans exempt from this?

This thread is about your idiotic proposition, King of Spaz Racists. You have utterly failed to substantiate the proposition. Too bad, so sad, loser.