| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| How Should Human Subspecies Be Classified?; A discussion about human subspecies. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 18 2016, 02:05 AM (4,113 Views) | |
| Creeper | Apr 18 2016, 03:50 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Carboniferous Arthropod
![]()
|
I feel somewhat responsible for this topic, due to my post in the human v warthog thread. I'd just like to reiterate that I was speaking specifically about weight differences of regional sub-populations, which is valid and testable, not denoting humans into sub-species, which would require some form of genetic validation. Even if genetic validation could be established for division, the social backlash it established would hardly be worth the effort. Regional "genetic purity," would be almost impossible to establish in the post colonial expansion world we live in. Genetically speaking, aside from very isolated populations, most people have ancestors from around the globe. |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Apr 18 2016, 04:19 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are Jews. They know that we are different and this is why they consider us inferior and try to control us. However there are two factors that could affect this. 1) Couples with individuals of different races. This cross-breeding among humans has been occuring since long ago so now we are mixed. 2) Lack of natural selection due to medical science. I assume that normally a family that has for example albinism running through it wouldn't be so capable of surviving and reproducing normally like all the rest. Or a family with diabetes. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Apr 18 2016, 04:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Creeper | Apr 18 2016, 04:37 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Carboniferous Arthropod
![]()
|
You are really toeing the line of bigotry with comments like this, honestly the emoticon is the only thing that saved this comment from increasing your warn level |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 18 2016, 04:46 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Under the premise that close to no "pure" people exist, what is the point of applying the race system to humans? Hm, the effects of this would not have kicked off until about a few centuries ago, when medicine started to use science. BTW, given the unpopularity and discrimination of albinos, I am not sure if their reproductive success is high either way. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 18 2016, 08:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Apr 18 2016, 04:52 AM Post #20 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, these aren't reasons for that. The low genetic variability is probably caused by a (or some) genetic bottleneck(s) in our history. |
![]() |
|
| Thalassophoneus | Apr 18 2016, 06:36 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Pelagic Killer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, that's what I'm asking. Isn't it possible that the results you got about genetic variation among humans are twisted by the fact that there are no "pure" people of one race anymore? So African-Americans for example are like intermediates between "pure" Africans and "pure" European Americans.
There's discrimination against albinos? I didn't know that. Do people have a discrimination against everything?
I was thinking of skipping the emoticon but then there's the problem of Poe's law. Edited by Thalassophoneus, Apr 18 2016, 06:36 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Apr 18 2016, 07:21 AM Post #22 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I suggest you read this article to get a basic understanding of the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 18 2016, 07:33 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I won't be so sure about the last part, interracial marriage was long illegal or a taboo in America (only about 9 million Americans have a multiracial background). Anyway, I don't believe interracial breeding is a that huge factor (as Spartan wrote, a bottleneck is the accepted answer), as the relevant studies looked at geographically more or less separate populations. In fact, geographical grouping of humans has, unlike racial, some support among scientists, but terms like subspecies are from my knowledge not used, since they would still need some discontinuum of genetic features. I admit, I have no clue on albinism, but marrying one is often regarded as extraordinary: http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/article/2012-11-11/90487/ Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 18 2016, 07:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| M4A2E4 | Apr 18 2016, 10:12 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd say no, mostly because its almost impossible to figure out where the line should be drawn. As you travel from western europe eastwards to asia you get a very slow, gradual transition to a typical "white" person to a typical "asian" person. There's no actual well defined line separating the two. The separation between, say, wolf or bear subspecies tends to be much easier to define. Edited by M4A2E4, Apr 18 2016, 10:15 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Apr 18 2016, 10:23 AM Post #25 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Although you can get this slow, gradual transition even between extant species (and of course even all the way up to domains if you consider extinct organisms). |
![]() |
|
| Takeshi | Apr 18 2016, 10:57 AM Post #26 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, a tiny majority of the genes of a Tiger or Grey Wolf are responsible for creating the differences between their subspecies, but would you deny their existence? |
![]() |
|
| Grimace | Apr 18 2016, 11:39 AM Post #27 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Probably by subspecies, but of course we can't do that because everyone would have to make it into a big racism thing. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 18 2016, 06:35 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Genetic diversity is not the only issue, there is also the lack of a dis-continuum (as M4A2E4 pointed) that makes it hard to draw lines. I am simply not aware of any definition of subspecies which human populations could fulfill. |
![]() |
|
| maker | Apr 18 2016, 07:01 PM Post #29 |
|
Apex Predator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Most humans, if not all, are already in the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, so subspecies within a subspecies wouldn't be plausible. Although this classification has the issue that the Omo remains, which are classified as H. s. sapiens, were older than most H. s. idaltu remains, which were the direct ancestor of the former subspecies. |
![]() |
|
| Gyirin | Apr 18 2016, 08:27 PM Post #30 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Agreed. People will be like "our subspecies is superior."and stuff like that. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic » |











![]](http://b2.ifrm.com/28122/87/0/p701956/pipright.png)



2:03 AM Jul 14