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 (4,109 Views)
Gyirin
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
What about earlier Homo species and Australopithecus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fireflight
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
maker
Apr 23 2016, 08:46 PM
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.
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 lol . 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 - lol is useless... Nah nah. I like this smiley. Really a lot. Ha
Edited by Fireflight, Apr 24 2016, 06:19 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I can see your point regarding discrimination, but I must reply to this:
Fireflight
Apr 24 2016, 12:06 AM
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 lol . So what? It's a fact, but it's useless.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wombatman
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gyirin
Apr 23 2016, 10:51 PM
What about earlier Homo species and Australopithecus?
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think the word "race" is good for anything other than describing different breeds of domesticated animals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Takeshi
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
If humans are already a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Sapiens), then humans can't be divided into subspecies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wombatman
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Apr 24 2016, 02:56 AM
I don't think the word "race" is good for anything other than describing different breeds of domesticated animals.
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.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wombatman
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Apr 24 2016, 04:49 AM
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).
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wombatman
Apr 24 2016, 05:33 AM
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.
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.
Wombatman
Apr 24 2016, 05:33 AM
I thought recognising that goes together with recognising evolution.
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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fireflight
Member Avatar
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Apr 24 2016, 01:56 AM
I can see your point regarding discrimination, but I must reply to this:
Fireflight
Apr 24 2016, 12:06 AM
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 lol . So what? It's a fact, but it's useless.
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.
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.
Takeshi
Apr 24 2016, 04:01 AM
If humans are already a subspecies of Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Sapiens), then humans can't be divided into subspecies.
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. lol
Edited by Fireflight, Apr 24 2016, 06:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wombatman
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Jinfengopteryx
Apr 24 2016, 05:45 AM

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).
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fireflight
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply