| 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 (4,109 Views) | |
| Gyirin | Apr 23 2016, 10:51 PM Post #76 |
|
Omnivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What about earlier Homo species and Australopithecus? |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 23 2016, 10:55 PM Post #77 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm a bit over-asked, you can use Answers in Genesis' search function. As for Australopithecus, they usually say it was a full monkey. |
![]() |
|
| Fireflight | Apr 24 2016, 12:06 AM Post #78 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let me bring up the fact that your avatar is a cat. Sure, it is a fact, but how important is it? Is it important just because it's true? If I say "lol" on this post it will look like this . So what? It's a fact, but it's useless. Plus, let's say you were already being discriminated against, not being given jobs because they think you are different from other people. However, no one proved this. Someone comes in and, for the saaaaake of scieeeeence proves you are different. This just enforces such discrimination. It isn't good for you. Are you just going to live without a job, being discriminated because they proved you are different? Going to starve to death because they proved such a fact? What did we gain from proving you are different? Nothing, or did we? The truth cannot be censored when it is important. When it has no social or other value, people can live without it. There are many things humans don't know and things are going in an acceptable manner.I just read you said agree to disagree, that was after typing up all of this. I'll just leave the reply here, but I'm fine with us disagreeing here. Also... I just noticed that part might look like I was saying this guy - is useless... Nah nah. I like this smiley. Really a lot. Ha
Edited by Fireflight, Apr 24 2016, 06:19 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 24 2016, 01:56 AM Post #79 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can see your point regarding discrimination, but I must reply to this:By that logic, scientists should not concern themselves with the classification of Pluto, the causes of the Permian-Triassic extinction, the existence of magnetic monopoles or the color of dinosaurs. The knowledge that Archaeopteryx had dark feathers doesn't make my life more comfortable. In fact, stuff like "evolution/relativity/InsertATheoryYouDon'tLike doesn't produce anything of value", "Why should I care for the existence of Higgs bosons? It only eats my tax money!" or "These science fanatics are among the greatest detriments to our society, so much tax money for useless projects!" are very, very common among the anti-science people. I can kinda see your point on discrimination, but please, don't come up with these "Where are the benefits?" questions. |
![]() |
|
| Wombatman | Apr 24 2016, 02:25 AM Post #80 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Some people believe there is a missing link between "apes and humans". A lot of people, actually. So if it looks more like a chimp, it is an animal, if it looks more like a human, it is a person. As for the thread itself, I think only the most isolated human populations would have a different enough DNA to classify as subspecies, but probably it would be more like a race. Dog races are more different than human races, at least physically. So in my unexpert opinion, there is only Homo sapiens sapiens. And of course, there is races of Homo sapiens sapiens. |
![]() |
|
| Spartan | Apr 24 2016, 02:56 AM Post #81 |
|
Kleptoparasite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think the word "race" is good for anything other than describing different breeds of domesticated animals. |
![]() |
|
| Takeshi | Apr 24 2016, 04:01 AM Post #82 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If humans are already a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Sapiens), then humans can't be divided into subspecies. |
![]() |
|
| Wombatman | Apr 24 2016, 04:30 AM Post #83 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The word itself doesnt matter a lot. In a few years it will be taboo and replaced by another one, and then again. The fact is that humans show great physical variation depending on the isolated population they descend from. From DNA to skeletal and muscular built, skin and hair color. Denying that there is differences is idiotic, but it seems to make some people feel better. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 24 2016, 04:49 AM Post #84 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which isolated populations are you talking about (you seem to be talking about the traditional division)? Isolated populations implies some sort of discontinuum. If you go from Scandinavia to Central Europe, to Southern Europe, to the Orient, to Northern Africa, to Subsaharan Africa, you see a rather gradual darkening of skin, eye and hair color. M4A2E4 gave another analogy on page 2. Moreover, as pointed out before, there is also variation within population that overlaps with the variation of other populations. You can find blonde and blue-eyed people in the Orient, just like you can find brown-haired and brown-eyed people in Europe (recent migration flows cannot account for all of them). |
![]() |
|
| Wombatman | Apr 24 2016, 05:33 AM Post #85 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Prehistoric isolated populations, since nowadays most human populations are connected and there is race mixture, of course there is migration and genetic crossing. African humans were isolated in Africa (MAINLY) hence the physical differences from, for example, european or "native" american populations. I thought recognising that goes together with recognising evolution. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 24 2016, 05:45 AM Post #86 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe there was indeed some isolation (such as isolation of North and South Europeans through mountain ranges), but given that bottlenecks were fairly recent and that mixing has diminished the effects, I'm not sure to what extent we can talk about races today. BTW, while I'm not sure how it looked in prehistoric times, migration and mixing are not nowadays phenomena. There were plenty of empires with a lot of territory where the conquerors mixed with the people of the land they conquered and I'm sure such mixing already started before history. Recognizing variation in fact goes together with evolution, but there is also variation between me and my siblings, so this is rather trivial. Opposition to the race concept has (in this case) nothing to do with political correctness. The question is rather if it (or any synonym) is a meaningful description of human variation. And if it is only about recognizing that human variation exists, the topic becomes trivial (see above). |
![]() |
|
| Fireflight | Apr 24 2016, 06:04 AM Post #87 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am not bringing the "what are the benefits?" questions alone. That point does not exist alone to me, I made a point by summing that up with discrimination. My logic is that... There is a fact to be discovered. Is it useful? Discover it, announce it. If it's not useful, does the discovery enforce harmful things, such as discrimination? If not, discover it, announce it. If yes, then it is not needed and we can go on without it, and we're good without it too. Get what I'm saying? I'm not against "useless" discoveries, I'm against discoveries that do no good, but enforce harm. And yeah, I tried to make that some sort of flow chart. I think the question at hand is about reclassifying them. Should it actually happen, should Homo sapiens have more subspecies, or should it just stay as it is? I think that's the question at hand. Edit: Wait... You made the thread.
Edited by Fireflight, Apr 24 2016, 06:16 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Wombatman | Apr 24 2016, 06:19 AM Post #88 |
|
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You are right, sorry if I was being dull. And if this is about the name, I think race is a more appropiate term than subespecies for describing human variation |
![]() |
|
| Fireflight | Apr 24 2016, 06:25 AM Post #89 |
![]()
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
^ I see nothing wrong with race either, although in those days we live in, gotta admit we must be careful with the use of that word. Ethnicity works too. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 24 2016, 06:29 AM Post #90 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To be fair, I admit that we can maybe talk about races (of course not when we are supposed to be politically correct) if we stick to sociology rather than biology, as it undeniably exists as a social construct. |
![]() |
|
| 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)





. So what? It's a fact, but it's useless. Plus, let's say you were already being discriminated against, not being given jobs because they think you are different from other people. However, no one proved this. Someone comes in and, for the saaaaake of scieeeeence proves you are different. This just enforces such discrimination. It isn't good for you. Are you just going to live without a job, being discriminated because they proved you are different? Going to starve to death because they proved such a fact? What did we gain from proving you are different? Nothing, or did we? The truth cannot be censored when it is important. When it has no social or other value, people can live without it. There are many things humans don't know and things are going in an acceptable manner.
2:03 AM Jul 14