Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
How Should Human Subspecies Be Classified?; A discussion about human subspecies.
Topic Started: Apr 18 2016, 02:05 AM (4,110 Views)
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't know if we can say science is meant to improve our lifestyles, it started as a hobby of people who had a lot money, spare time and thirst for knowledge. But having several subspecies does not really make us wiser, so it is either way rather useless.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 23 2016, 06:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fireflight
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Yeah, maybe I should rephrase that. We do use science as a way to improve many things though, and I don't see any benefit in classifying humans that way. I think it would be just a way of spending money and time on something not so useful when all that effort could be put into something more meaningful. Of course, that's if we're talking about serious research, some Internet debating over the matter might not be too useful but on the other hand, it isn't harmful either. Unless you're like me, procrastinating...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maker
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Fireflight
Apr 23 2016, 06:40 AM
Science is meant to discover things that improve our life style, and it is a good thing, but it isn't that great when it is used to cause discrimination. I think we are just fine the way we are and that we don't need to go very far into the subject, a bit too complicated to prove if we have subspecies or not, and in the end if we prove something we don't really get that many benefits from it.
So basically you're saying that we shouldn't even bother trying to research the subject just because it offends some people? Science is meant to know facts, whether they're "good" or "bad". Censoring "bad" facts is what authoritarians are trying to do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fireflight
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
maker
Apr 23 2016, 10:40 AM
Fireflight
Apr 23 2016, 06:40 AM
Science is meant to discover things that improve our life style, and it is a good thing, but it isn't that great when it is used to cause discrimination. I think we are just fine the way we are and that we don't need to go very far into the subject, a bit too complicated to prove if we have subspecies or not, and in the end if we prove something we don't really get that many benefits from it.
So basically you're saying that we shouldn't even bother trying to research the subject just because it offends some people? Science is meant to know facts, whether they're "good" or "bad". Censoring "bad" facts is what authoritarians are trying to do.
I never said it's because it offends some people... Or did I? The problem with racism isn't offending people, if that was just it racism wouldn't be seen the way it's seen. What I'm saying is that it's a completely useless fact, it will do nothing good to society, it will only make racism a bigger issue. We don't need it, it's just wasting time with the truth under the belief that the truth is always good. The truth is not always good, we can live without some truths. And are you implying that authoritarianism is always bad? Because if done with good intentions, with good results, it isn't bad at all. It's bad when it's overdone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gyirin
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Some truths are better left undiscovered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It's still silly to speak about "facts" or "truths" when talking about something like subspecies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maker
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Fireflight
Apr 23 2016, 11:19 AM
we can live without some truths.
Gyirin
Apr 23 2016, 08:13 PM
Some truths are better left undiscovered.

I disagree. I think that all facts must be discovered and accepted by people, some things you just have to accept whether you like it or not. I dislike all forms of censorship, but it just blows my mind to see that some people actually support censoring the truth. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Regardless, I believe that humans shouldn't be classified into subspecies, not because of some moral issues but because that the scientific evidence for them are inadequate. My posts may make some people think that I support the classification, which I don't.
Edited by maker, Apr 23 2016, 08:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gyirin
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
maker
Apr 23 2016, 08:46 PM
but it just blows my mind to see that some people actually support censoring the truth.
It blows my mind to think some people regard science more important than morals and humanities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
What kind of science should that be? Science doesn't set any moral standards at all. Facts should never be withheld in science. It's up to us what we do with them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Apr 23 2016, 09:45 PM
What kind of science should that be? Science doesn't set any moral standards at all.
Sam Harris dislikes this post, he wants a branch of science that createsstudies morality!

Joke aside, what Gyirin is fearing are not what necessarily follows from a particular scientific discovery, but what would very probably follow from it.
I believe he knows that the probable racist reaction won't be logical.

That being said, I can understand maker. You can easily create a slippery slope by introducing taboo topics and science right now faces enough prohibitions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gyirin
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Just popped in to my mind. What do evolution deniers say about fossil human relatives like Neanderthals and Homo erectus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maker
Member Avatar
Apex Predator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gyirin
Apr 23 2016, 09:35 PM
It blows my mind to think some people regard science more important than morals and humanities.
Umm, I don't. The problem is some people are just going to interpret scientific statements negatively. Even evolution, one of the most basic aspects of biology, can be used negatively to justify abuses of ethnic minorities. But you're not going to support censoring evolution do you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gyirin
Apr 23 2016, 10:00 PM
Just popped in to my mind. What do evolution deniers say about fossil human relatives like Neanderthals and Homo erectus?
That they were full humans.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gyirin
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
You mean they think those other species are Homo sapiens?
Edited by Gyirin, Apr 23 2016, 10:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
There is some controversy on whether Neanderthals are an actual species or just subspecies of Homo sapiens. Given that they were able to breed with humans, it is very well possible that they were in fact just a subspecies
Anyway, here is what the leading creationist organization has to say on Neanderthals:
Quote:
 
The Neandertals are not mysterious, but rather incredibly intriguing. We view them as the fully human ancestors of some modern humans, probably some Europeans and western Asians. They were a post-Flood, Ice Age people, specializing in hunting the large, grazing animals that were abundant towards the end of the Ice Age.
http://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/the-neandertals-our-worthy-ancestors/
As far as I know, they even go as far as saying that even Homo species like H. erectus (where all scientists agree that it was not a H. sapiens subspecies) were just modern humans.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 23 2016, 10:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply