Genetic factors are considered, and has been stated, genetic markers between human ethnicity are very minor in significance. I should be fascinated to here from anyone who knows of any other human sub-species that is currently extant! So I’m not going to try to prove anything. Originally Posted by Flick Montana Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by dan hunter It is only the word “race” that is out of favour because of political correctness. It has been replaced with euphemisms like variant, cultivar, variety and strain.I would mention subspecies as another euphemism for the word race but of course the calling somebody a sub-human would be even worse than calling them a troglodyte.Troglodytae – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals.
The populations were isolated enough, at least at one time, to develop recognizable physical differences, so how do you come to this conclusion? The burden of proof is actually on you to establish that humans have sub-species, it isn’t on me to disprove it. Either there is just a species, or there are two or more branches and every member of that species falls in one of them. Here is a sub-species: Homo sapiens sapiens. No ethnicity is close to different enough from another ethnicity to be anything but Homo sapien Sapiens.
On the other hand Sowz37 is simply stating the position that, to my knowledge, is held by the vast majority of anthropologists, primatologists, or any other relevant kind of ologist. That is – to be diplomatic – disingenuous. Originally Posted by SowZ37 But it’s just incorrect.
Surely with any species divided into subspecies, there will be some interbreeding at the boundaries of the ranges won’t there? Genetic factors are considered, and has been stated, genetic markers between human ethnicity are very minor in significance. It has been replaced with euphemisms like variant, cultivar, variety and strain.I would mention subspecies as another euphemism for the word race but of course the calling somebody a sub-human would be even worse than calling them a troglodyte.Troglodytae – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sub-species is a perfectly valid concept in taxonomy used to classify plants and animals. It doesn’t mean either one of the sub-species is better than the other, although, they might be better adapted to the environment in which they evolved. For one, you can’t have a main species and a sub species.
Also, it has happened on multiple occasions that animals once considered sub-species are not sub-species. As such there is no burden of proof on him. Apparently there is something in the contract of owning a team that lets the NBA take the team from him because…”NBA owners agree to force sale of LA Clippers”On Thursday the 10-member NBA advisory committee unanimously agreed to begin terminating Mr Sterling’s ownership.””http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27248645 Humans have had ‘sub species,’ using that definition, but not anymore. You have implicitly stated that humans have sub-species.
Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by Flick Montana Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by dan hunter It is only the word “race” that is out of favour because of political correctness. Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener.
But there are criteria. Also, it has happened on multiple occasions that animals once considered sub-species are not sub-species. my 2 cent rant1- There is no such thing as a “Race”, it is a pure arbitrary fabrication. You have implicitly stated that humans have sub-species. Originally Posted by SowZ37 The burden of proof is actually on you to establish that humans have sub-species, it isn’t on me to disprove it.
Sir Galt….you are far smarter than I. I know of no reason it shouldn’t be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. Subspecies – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Due to humans not being geographically isolated from one another, reducing interbreeding, would it not be very hard to define us in terms of subspecies? I suppose there are still populations which have not significantly interbred outside their original geographic areas.
But there are criteria. Are there any objective criteria? Classification isn’t quite objective in the same way that other fields are objective because it deals with language.
That is the point, and you seemed to have understood it in your second sentence.As for your first sentence, do you really want to go around calling other people subhumans? Somehow I doubt if that would go over very well. “Sub” just means last minute essay
it’s the next level down on the classification chart. Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by SowZ37 Classification isn’t quite objective in the same way that other fields are objective because it deals with language. Subspecies – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Due to humans not being geographically isolated from one another, reducing interbreeding, would it not be very hard to define us in terms of subspecies? I suppose there are still populations which have not significantly interbred outside their original geographic areas. Would/could Homo Sapiens with Neanderthal DNA be classified as a Homo Sapiens sub-species?
Just wondering since we are way off the thread topic. So I’m not going to try to prove anything. We share genes with freaking yeast mice and lizards, a blood transfusion isnt based on outward appearance but on blood type which as nothing to do with an imaginary “race”, race is as ridiculous as believing in the easter bunny, witches or acting different towards people with different eye color, it only makes any remote sense for people in a culture that is racist(they have learned about this fabricated narrative and use it such as saying “obama is the first black president”), racist which I define as making a distinction based on arbitrary skin/superficial features, if you say Obama is “black” imo you are in a racist culture because it is ridiculous to call that human being “black” outside this racist parade bubble of delusion just as it would be outlandish to say “Johnson is the first Green president” [reference to eye colour].2- There is nothing inherent or “human nature” about selecting the skin pigmentation as a basis for identity or behaviour difference (outside personal superficial preferences for mate selection and functional considerations), children that do not learn to view another kid with a different skin tone as a grouping/categorization parameter do NOT behave any different with kids of various skin tones than they would behave differently towards kids with different eye colour (if you’re social environment /culture makes this fact not self evident, It is a fact I observe on a regular basis). Humans have had ‘sub species,’ using that definition, but not anymore.
As such there is no burden of proof on him. For one, you can’t have a main species and a sub species. On the other hand Sowz37 is simply stating the position that, to my knowledge, is held by the vast majority of anthropologists, primatologists, or any other relevant kind of ologist. Either there is just a species, or there are two or more branches and every member of that species falls in one of them. Either there is just a species, or there are two or more branches and every member of that species falls in one of them.
Humans have had ‘sub species,’ using that definition, but not anymore. Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by SowZ37 The burden of proof is actually on you to establish that humans have sub-species, it isn’t on me to disprove it. Less significant than, say, the difference between Atlantic and Hudson Bay Canada geese? Also, typically speaking, sub species are able to reproduce offspring with each other but don’t very often for whatever reason, (usually geographical.) Humans of various regions have become intermixed enough that even if sub species would have eventually come about, they didn’t because we weren’t isolated.
Well, I’m not a biologist of any kind, and I haven’t made any claims, just asked the question. Also, typically speaking, sub species are able to reproduce offspring with each other but don’t very often for whatever reason, (usually geographical.) Humans of various regions have become intermixed enough that even if sub species would have eventually come about, they didn’t because we weren’t isolated.In the race argument, saying we are part of different sub-species would be like saying a blue tick hound with black in its fur is a different sub-species than a blue tick hound without the black, which is absurd from a taxonomic POV. From my knowledge, as another non-biologist – this is patent nonsense and does need to defended, or retracted.
I’m not a biologist either, but since genetic differences between Human and Chip is only 4%.Human-chimp genetic differences: New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases — ScienceDaily There is nothing natural or inherent about the concept of race. The populations were isolated enough, at least at one time, to develop recognizable physical differences, so how do you come to this conclusion? I should be fascinated to here from anyone who knows of any other human sub-species that is currently extant! You’re wrong about that. From my knowledge, as another non-biologist – this is patent nonsense and does need to defended, or retracted.
For one, you can’t have a main species and a sub species. Originally Posted by SowZ37 But it’s just incorrect. Here is a sub-species: Homo sapiens sapiens. I await a suite of peer reviewed research papers discussing the sub-species of homo sapiens. Surely with any species divided into subspecies, there will be some interbreeding at the boundaries of the ranges won’t there?
Genetic factors are considered, and has been stated, genetic markers between human ethnicity are very minor in significance. Originally Posted by SowZ37 Classification isn’t quite objective in the same way that other fields are objective because it deals with language. Are there any objective criteria?
Tell you what, I’ll start the ball rolling. I know of no reason it shouldn’t be applied to humans, except the taxonomist is afraid of being called a racist. But there are criteria. How different is different enough?
I’ve seen birds classified as different subspecies based on minor differences in tail feather colors, or something of that nature. No ethnicity is close to different enough from another ethnicity to be anything but Homo sapien Sapiens. But it’s just incorrect. I await a suite of peer reviewed research papers discussing the sub-species of homo sapiens. I have a completely open mind about the subject.
Do you think that variants, cultivars or strains are just euphemisms? If so, you are probably not a gardener. OTOH, you have made a claim. Tell you what, I’ll start the ball rolling. Less significant than, say, the difference between Atlantic and Hudson Bay Canada geese?
Also, typically speaking, sub species are able to reproduce offspring with each other but don’t very often for whatever reason, (usually geographical.) Humans of various regions have become intermixed enough that even if sub species would have eventually come about, they didn’t because we weren’t isolated. No ethnicity is close to different enough from another ethnicity to be anything but Homo sapien Sapiens. OTOH, you have made a claim. Also, it has happened on multiple occasions that animals once considered sub-species are not sub-species. How different is different enough?
I’ve seen birds classified as different subspecies based on minor differences in tail feather colors, or something of that nature. Well, I’m not a biologist of any kind, and I haven’t made any claims, just asked the question. Originally Posted by John Galt That is – to be diplomatic – disingenuous.