21
   

Can humans be divided ito subspecies?

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 09:48 am
@izzythepush,
Hes the same one that says we had stegosaurs living with the Great Lakes Indian Tribes in the last few hundred years.
I guess they ate up all the stegosaurs
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 09:52 am
@farmerman,
So The Flintstones isn't as reliable a source as some would have us believe?

What about the Jetsons?

Please don't tell me that there isn't a gang of kids, riding around in a transit van with a talking Great Dane, solving mysteries. I don't think I could take that.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2012 12:52 pm
@izzythepush,
to be enjoyed whilst quaffing a tankard of DogfishHead Ale. It comes in at a whopping 15% alcohol vbw.

A coupla those and youll believe anything that gunga wishes to fart your way.
0 Replies
 
nothingtodo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Dec, 2012 10:17 am
@iamsam82,
To strip down humanity, prompts the looking down on all, as scientists, and not as unified organisms of the one goal.. Science is aware of this and intellectually places eggs in many baskets, whilst calling them all eggs.

Finchus beakusnormalis and Finchus beakusbiggus
LOL.
Such is often the temptation.
0 Replies
 
abuafak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Nov, 2013 12:35 pm
@iamsam82,
Jerry A Coyne, perhaps foremost Species expert and author of textbook of same name:

Are there Human Races?"

"...But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo.
And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology)."..."

Sarrich and Miele

""[........]
Sarich and Miele then address Gould's race-does-not-exist mantra: "The basic reason Gould gives for his no-race position is this: 'Homo sapiens is a young species, its division into races even more recent. This historical context has not supplied enough time for the evolution of substantial differences.' (This from the man famous for his theory [with Niles Eldridge] of punctuated equilibria.)" They then go on to explain why Gould is wrong.

They looked at differences between human races, between males and females, and differences between primates—particularly chimpanzees and gorillas. **What is astounding is that there is greater morphological distance between human races than there are between the two chimpanzee species or between gorilla species/subspecies. **

That is, the differences between human Races are Real, they are Substantial, and they did not take millions of years to diverge. Humans, rapidly occupying every available niche after leaving Africa 50,000 years ago, has been under enormous pressure to adapt. To do this meant selection for morphological, pharmacogenetic, behavioral, and cognitive traits. Not only are there many human races, but there are at least as many races as there are ecological niches, and only humans can create their own niches with forethought. What this means is not only Are there human Races, but humans have evolved uniquely to alter there own cultures or ecologies, further increasing unique selection pressures....

Sarich and Miele explain: "Molecular data suggest that the two chimpanzee lineages separated around 1.5 million years ago; the comparable human figure is on the order of 15,000 years. In other words, the two chimp lineages are 100-fold older, yet show the same amount of variation. That is a remarkable result, the implications of which take a while to sink in. The implications follow this logic: Human races are very strongly marked morphologically; human races are very young; so much variation developing in so short a period of time implies, indeed almost certainly requires, functionality; there is no good reason to think that behavior should somehow be exempt from this pattern of functional variability. [...….]
iamsam82
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 03:06 pm
@abuafak,
I still wonder about this question, abuafak. I find it fascinating but just a glance over some of the posts here shows that even places as enlightened and open as a2k are not ready to touch this subject with a ten-foot barge pole yet.

I've been looking into Svante Pääbo recently and he says that sapiens and neanderthalensis could inter-breed and produce fertile young despite being different species. Does this mean the old "if they can inter-breed and produce fertile young, they are the same species" rule is out of the window?

I still don't really get how all the 'races' (if we have to give morphological diversity amongst humans a label) aren't technically different species or at least sub-species. Looking at the latest reconstructions of neanderthalensis, I'd say he is a more likely candidate for being given the Homo sapiens label than pygmy human beings alive today are. I see more biological difference between pygmies and the majority of mankind than I do between the majority of mankind and neanderthalensis.

I stress again, in no way do I intend that pygmies, Europeans or Neanderthals are somehow to be ranked. Only classified. Personally, I've always loved Neanderthals more than sapiens! I just don't get how science does not recognise differences in our genus but does in all others.

Genuinely confused but, as I say; can of worms. Best let it lie.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 03:20 pm
@iamsam82,
Quote:
Can humans be divided ito subspecies?


My answer to that one would be no.

There is terribly little genetic variation in modern humans, with some scholars saying there is less total variation in the human race than in a typical troupe of monkeys of the same species. Likewise when you talk about subspecies of finches with different kinds of beaks, the one kind can actually do things which the other cannot; no such division exists amongst humans.

The basic reality as I understand it from several fairly new sources, is that there wree two original groups or saltations of humans on the planet, and that it has nothing to do with race or color; either group is capable of producing any color or feature you'd ever see in modern humans. The two groups/saltations would be the Cro Magnon group which got here some 45,000 years ago, and the familiar antediluvian people of Genesis who got here some 4000 - 7000 years ago. The two groups are genetically identical or so close to that as to make the difference fairly meaningless, but the original technologies and cultures were totally different.

Best description I've seen:

http://www.cosmosincollision.com



iamsam82
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 03:22 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Likewise when you talk about subspecies of finches with different kinds of beaks, the one kind can actually do things which the other cannot; no such division exists amongst humans.


Errrr... Basketball?
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 03:27 pm
@iamsam82,
Quote:
Errrr... Basketball?


Differences amongst humans are quantitative: make a basketball hoop low enough and pygmies could play basketball.

Differences amongst finches are qualitative.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 03:36 pm
@izzythepoop

Neanderthal footprints are apelike. Neanderthal rib cages are conical as are those of primates (to make room for the huge upper body musculature of the apes); our rib cages are cylindrical. Neanderthal faces are prognathic (they had snouts); ours aren't.

Neanderthal eye sockets are two or more times the size of ours. They were adapted to a very dark sort of a world, while our relatively tiny eyes are adapted to bright conditions.

Neanderthal nasal areas are much larger than ours, because they actually were land animals. We are basically aquatic creatures and a decent sense of smell is not necessary to an aquatic creature. A land prey animal trying to make it with our sense of smell wouldn't last more than a couple of months.

Cro Magnon needles are common, while nobody has ever found the first Neanderthal needle; that's because a creature with a 6" ice-age fur coat doesn't REQUIRE needles.

This is what a Neanderthal actually looked like:

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r53/icebear46/dvneanderx_zpsd398dd38.jpg

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

(www.themandus.org)
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 03:46 pm
@iamsam82,
Quote:
I've been looking into Svante Pääbo recently and he says that sapiens and neanderthalensis could inter-breed and produce fertile young despite being different species.


That couldn't happen in real life. Paabo is assuming that some Neanderthal male could have raped a woman and, rather than cooking and eating her as usual, kept her alive long enough to bear a cross-species child, raised that child to reproductive age, and then somehow caused that child to breed back into human populations without anybody catching on. That's idiotic. There has to be some other reason for any genetic similarities Paabo is seeing between humans and Neanderthals.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 03:49 pm
Neanderthal Dinner Party

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cannibal-neanderthal-gang-in-northern-spain-ate-12-of-their-neighbours-raw-scientists-say-8960800.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8038706.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/Pg-8-scientists-getty.jpg

Quote:

Scientists have discovered the remains of a group of Neanderthals in northern Spain who were butchered and eaten by a group of local cannibals, according to research presented at the Royal Society in London.

A cache of bones which had clearly been cracked open using tools has been analysed in a painstaking study over the past 13 years.

First discovered deep inside the El Sidron cave system in 1994, the bones had been preserved for 51,000 years and have now been analysed using modern-day CSI forensic techniques.

According to reports in the Sunday Times, Carles Lalueza-Fox of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona told the Society the slaughtered group included three children aged from two to nine, three teenagers and six adults.

“They appear to have been killed and eaten, with their bones and skulls split open to extract the marrow, tongue and brains,” he said.

“All had been butchered. It must have been a big feast.”

Dr Lalueza-Fox said the bone pile likely washed through a sinkhole from a rocky shelter above, eventually settling in the small alcove of the cave system where they were found.

This meant they were kept in a condition unlike almost any other Neanderthal remains, and proved a perfect snapshot of a single, deadly clash, likely between two local gangs.

The tools found at the site of the slaughter came from a few kilometres away, Dr Lalueza-Fox said, suggesting their fellow early human attackers were probably also their neighbours.

Finally, scientists proposed a theory for the motive behind the attack – and a simple one at that.

Unlike the earliest anatomically modern humans, who coped with periods of food shortage by joining forces in large, efficient groups, Neanderthals tended to gather in small family gangs of around 10-12.

When times were tough in winter, this meant they had to resort to extreme measures.

Dr Lalueza-Fox said: “I would guess they were killed in winter when food was short. There is no evidence of any fire so they were eaten raw immediately and every bit of meat was consumed. They even cut around the mandibles of the jaw to extract the tongues.”

spendius
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 03:56 pm
@gungasnake,
I should think, gunga, that most people of delicate Christian sensibilities will find that post quite distasteful.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 04:05 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I should think, gunga, that most people of delicate Christian sensibilities will find that post quite distasteful.


So what??
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 04:08 pm
@spendius,
You worried about demoKKKrat voting blocks reading about this **** and getting ideas??
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 05:20 pm
Rob Gargett ("Subversive Archaeologist" notes that if you place the skulls of a human, a lion, and a Neanderthal together, the two which have anything in common are those of the lion and the Neanderthal:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XwfGXF4UziM/Tspbq0xsdDI/AAAAAAAAAgc/xTor2FcOT-k/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-11-21+at+06.09.05.png

Like the lion, the Neandrethal almost certainly viewed the living world as neatly divided into two parts, that is, his own family group, and meat.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 06:35 pm
@gungasnake,
This is apparently a paleolithic "Donner Party"

FROM PHARYNGULA, a site that suffers fools not.


Quote:


Pharyngula Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal



Neandertals were monsters!



Bad Science

by PZ Myers
Danny Vendramini is a man with a vision…but absolutely no knowledge or competence. He has invented out of whole cloth a bizarre hypothesis that Neandertals were super-predators who hunted modern humans for food and sex. To support this weird contention, he builds up a tissue thin set of speculations, all biased towards this idea that Neandertals were giant, hairy brutes who looked like bipedal chimpanzees, and that were intent on raping and eating people.

If it sounds like the plot for a cheesy SyFy channel horror movie, you shouldn’t be surprised: Vendramini is not a scientist, but he is a “theatre director, TV producer and award-winning film director and scriptwriter“. He has no training in comparative anatomy, ecology, or evolutionary biology, and it shows.

He has written a book titled Them+Us. Here’s the promotional video. Prepare to simultaneously laugh and stand aghast at the abuse of science.



I’m just going to take apart one claim out of this mass of nonsense. He commissioned “one of the world’s foremost digital sculptors”, Arturo Balseiro, to reconstruct a Neandertal skull to meet his requirements. Poor Balseiro! He’s not going to be well regarded in scientific circles after selling out this badly.

One of his hilarious claims is that all other reconstructions have been biased because they’ve been done to make Neandertals look human — but, don’t you know, Neandertals are primates, so they should be made to look like other primates.

Contemplate that last sentence. Humans are apparently not primates, and the analog for reconstruction should not be modern humans, their closest relative, separated by a mere 100,000 years, but a random gemisch of miscellaneous apes and monkeys, separated from Neandertal for over 6 million years.

To support this unlikely comparison, he superimposes a Neandertal skull on the profile of a chimpanzee, and declares that they fit perfectly.


There are a few problems with this reconstruction. To get the slope of the skull’s face to align with that of the chimpanzee, he has completely ignored the position of the foramen magnum, at the base of the skull. In the image to the right, the Neandertal’s spine would be erupting out the front of his trachea. Note also the little details, like this orientation requiring that the chimp’s ears be yanked down to be coming out of his neck, and how the chimp’s neck has to be mostly filled with the bowl of the occiput. It doesn’t fit. It doesn’t fit at all.

You can also look at a chimpanzee skull and compare it to that of a Neandertal (strangely, an obvious comparison that he doesn’t bother to make on his web page). They don’t look anything alike, except in the general sense that they’re both apes.


But ignore all that!a TV producer knows better.

The Neandertal skull above is actually the La Ferrassie specimen, the very same individual Vendramini uses to reconstruct his version of a Neandertal. And here it is, in all its ridiculous creature-feature glory.
       http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRThuS1811L4mcXYrk3l8-68DsAxXHDUg-0Rlq1XQr76kpnDcnS

After all that complaining about how those scientists impose their human biases on all the other Neandertal reconstructions, Vendramini just decides on the basis of no evidence at all that they had to have been as hairy as a gorilla, with cat’s eyes because they hunted at night.

It’s all ludicrous, pseudo-scientific bullshit.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 08:59 pm
@farmerman,
Paul Myers is what I'd call a "professional skeptic(TM)". That involves something akin to a claim of omniscience.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 10:27 pm
@gungasnake,
*** BOOKMARK: CLASSIC GUNGA ***

gungasnake wrote:

Rob Gargett ("Subversive Archaeologist" notes that if you place the skulls of a human, a lion, and a Neanderthal together, the two which have anything in common are those of the lion and the Neanderthal:


Maybe female Neanderthals were the inspiration for a certain popular comic book villain in the last century?!? Razz

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JbkeeCzYSlc/UIlxU6jOUYI/AAAAAAAABv0/laFOwz_pZ8A/s1600/44949-cat-woman-julie-newmar-catwoman.jpg
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2013 10:34 pm
@farmerman,
If I happened across a skull like that I would mistake it for hs.
 

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 0.04 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 03:48:41