21
   

Can humans be divided ito subspecies?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 12:35 pm
Oh wait . . . i might have misundestood. Are you saying you can't get laid because you can't sing?
iamsam82
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 12:38 pm
@farmerman,
Interesting. So, some of the animals we lumped together as members of the same genus in the past are now being shown to be only distantly related genetically? Any more examples?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 12:38 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Actually, it was done by Linné in 1766: Homo sapiens with two species, homo diurnus (day man) and homo nocturnus (night man).

Interesting. I did not know that. Now that I do, I wonder: Is that where H. G. Wells got the idea for the Eloi and the Morlock in his novel The Time Machine?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 12:49 pm
@iamsam82,
Wuite few , but remember, genetic data is useless at extreme dates .150K years. SO all the genetic information that is extractable must be gotten as a DNA form or a Osteocalcin form, then it degrades and every [rojection made is pure speculation based upon an assumption that genes only turn off and on, they mostly hang around as non coding "junk", thebetter understanding of which is only now being proposed.

mtDNA, yDNA and epigenetic "junk" is being assessed and carriers are being reinserted into whole different clades(which, in evolution, are an ancestral organism and ALL its known descendants). The science of cladistics is the "lumping of thee descendants ), and its been taken as a circular diagram rather than the older tree branch forms. We rely on genetics where we can and paleo where we must. Cladistics is proposing that the classification systems be more "bar code based (mstly alohabeumeric) . There is a huuge push back from the classical taxonomists . BUT, as time passes and the classical taxonomists pass on, I think we will see some more numeric (albeit less poetic) classification system for all life
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 12:54 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Oh wait . . . i might have misundestood. Are you saying you can't get laid because you can't sing?

I most definitely can sing! I can't get laid because I can't run; I can only waddle. And unfortunately, there is no mutant human species whose females dig obese males. But I digress. . . .
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 01:10 pm
@Thomas,
I must admit that I remember more about Linné than what happened in The Time machine.

So I had to look it up .... the narrator goes to the Linnaean Society ...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 01:23 pm
@Thomas,
A propos of not much in your post, the Polynesians valued highly obese women (ethnologists believe that this is because it is evidence of the wealth of their male relatives who can afford to overfeed them--c.f. the hefty female nudes of Albrecht Dürer). When Lt. Bligh arrived in Tahiti to get the breadfruit, they remembered him because he had been the sailing master to James Cook more than a decade earlier. So, in a gesture of extreme honor and generosity, the " King" sent his hugely obese wife to Bligh. She was so obese that she could not climb the side of the ship and had to be hoisted aboard in a sling. Bligh stood around nervously for about 30 minutes, then lead her back on deck and thanked the King for his generosity. However, the story quickly got around that he had not laid a finger on the woman, and relations were soured with the Tahitians ever after.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:18 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
And unfortunately, there is no mutant human species whose females dig obese males.


How does an obese male run marathons, Thomas?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 04:43 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
So I had to look it up .... the narrator goes to the Linnaean Society ...

He does? Now there's a part I didn't remember. But it makes sense now.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 06:42 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

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

Quote:
Many people alive today possess some Neanderthal ancestry, according to a landmark scientific study.

The finding has surprised many experts, as previous genetic evidence suggested the Neanderthals made little or no contribution to our inheritance.

The result comes from analysis of the Neanderthal genome - the "instruction manual" describing how these ancient humans were put together.

Between 1% and 4% of the Eurasian human genome seems to come from Neanderthals.

But the study confirms living humans overwhelmingly trace their ancestry to a small population of Africans who later spread out across the world.


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


Regardless how much of a Homosapien I am, I think those Neanderthal genes are the cause of my liking winter, and not liking summer. In other words, those Neanderthal genes can have an effect on humans today, I believe.

I really don't care about how much of a mutt I am. I sort of subscribe to us all evolving from bacteria that came to Earth in a meteorite, anyway. Plus, since evolution does not stop, some time in the far off future we may have developed traits that are better suited to our world. Like having certain sexual arousal nerve endings on our palms. That would be interesting. Can you hear women complaining, "All he wants to do is shake hands!"

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 06:54 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

You lost yourself when you argued that Homosapiens mated with Neanderthals creating Homosapiens.


"Homosapien of the Future," like "Chef of the Future" on one of the Honeymooners episodes.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 07:00 pm
If Neanderthal did not have as good a sense of humor as Homosapien, then based on the postings on this forum, there might be a real effusion of Neanderthal dominant genes present? Lighten up fellows. Must everything be taken with such seriousness? Joe Nation interjected a little light hearted humor back a ways. No wonder he lives in the city that the Seinfeld sitcom was based on. He, in my opinion, likely understands that too much seriousness is not good for our finite lifespan.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  4  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2012 03:57 am
@iamsam82,
iamsam82 wrote:
Can humans be divided ito subspecies?
No. Dogs have a much wider variety of morphology than humans do, and we still call them all Dogs. Species are usually defined by some level of reproductive restriction.
Pamela Rosa
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2012 04:34 am
@rosborne979,

Quote:

Hybridization
In 1933, three strange dolphins beached off the Irish coast; they appeared to be hybrids between Risso's and bottlenose dolphins.[9] This mating was later repeated in captivity, producing a hybrid calf. In captivity, a bottlenose and a rough-toothed dolphin produced hybrid offspring.[10] A common-bottlenose hybrid lives at SeaWorld California.[11] Other dolphin hybrids live in captivity around the world or have been reported in the wild, such as a bottlenose-Atlantic spotted hybrid.[12] The best known hybrid is the wolphin, a false killer whale-bottlenose dolphin hybrid. The wolphin is a fertile hybrid. Two wolphins currently live at the Sea Life Park in Hawaii; the first was born in 1985 from a male false killer whale and a female bottlenose. Wolphins have also been observed in the wild

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin#Hybridization
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2012 01:33 pm
@iamsam82,
Quote:
So why are humans exempt from this system?


We are not. When it comes to humans, biological classification of the kind we do with animals is less interesting. Instead we look at other things. How people behave, what they buy and what they search for on the internet. There are statistics about anything, from which type of people use a particular product to who is most likely to crash his car this year. There are endless classifications and categorizations of 'human'.

Also, I think the differences between african and asian humans is a matter of active and passive genes. The way I heard it, we all have the same genes. I am white, so I have a slight majority of the genes that produce these characteristics. There may have been subspecies once, but they are all so interbred now that we find all in everyone.
0 Replies
 
stevefrank
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 06:10 am
@Setanta,
I think these stones are related to our Archaeology culture.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 06:18 am
@iamsam82,
It's a matter of personal preference but I'd normally say no due to the mixing of races in the present world and the basic fact is that there is terribly little genetic diversity amongst humans, in fact less in the entire human race than in a typical group of forty or fifty African monkeys of the same species; that is presumably due to a very recent population bottleneck.

There were at least two original human groups on the planet, i.e. Cro Magnons, and the Bible antediluvians which were genetically close enough to neglect differences, but the cultures and technologies were totally different to such an extent that you have to view them as separate saltations. Either group is capable of producing any of the colors or features found in humans today.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 06:43 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
How does one account for the current theory that there was mixing between Neanderthal and Homosapiens?


You don't. Even orthodox scientists have just now given up on that.

http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthals-humans-interbreed-120816.html
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 07:08 am
@Pamela Rosa,
Dolphins/whales are one thing, humans/hominids are something else.

James Shreve documents the lack of physical evidence for human/Neanderthal crossbreeding under circumstances where much such evidence was to be expected:

http://discovermagazine.com/1995/sep/theneanderthalpe558

and then you get to Danny Vendramini's reconstructions and the reason for the lack of such evidence becomes fairly obvious:

Neanderthals, courtesy www.themandus.org, ice-age fur coat removed in some cases for illustration purposes:

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/Neanderthal_profile.gif

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/n6.gif

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/n4.gif

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/n7.gif

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/n11.gif
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2012 07:11 am
@gungasnake,
Charles Darwin said that species are a "purely subjective invention of the taxonomist."

Hey gunga--that case in Texas has caught out the NCSE, the ACLU and their lickspittals lackeys. Goodstyle. When push comes to shove they are very coy I must say. Maybe they are using evolution and science to play to a gallery which doesn't like the idea that masturbation, sex before marriage, with dispensations for those who sign up for life if the lady is impregnated, divorce, homosexuality, artificial birth control, abortion and other heresies, are sinful or error.

A large gallery you must admit. And it is a betrayal of science. When they lose the argument, as they must, because they can't handle the logic of their own position, science's name will be dragged in the dust.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 11:40:43