There are something like 5,000 known species of ants on the planet. All are ants. Their differences are determined in variances in biology, behaviour and geography. All are social insects, and probably among the few insects that literally have wars. I dont fully understand why we havent considered that there are different species of human. Like the ants, all human societies and cultures are social. We have wars also. And there are clear and undeniable differences that, as above, are entirely determined by biology, behaviour, geography etc. So just as ants are all ants, but just many species of ant, so it would seem logical to me that you would have different species of humans. You could say But there is only a small % of a difference in genetic make- up between Group A and Group B. Maybe so. But even 2% of a difference can be HUGE in actual reality. Chimps share 98% of their DNA with humans. They are almost human. But no one would categorise them as such because of that slight difference, and the obvious difference that makes between a chimp and you. I guess you could argue Ah, but if there were different species of human they wouldnt be able to inter breed. A reasonable point, save for the fact that species that are fairly close can indeed cross breed. Ligers. Tions. Many more examples. Ive also kept and studied Tarantulas, there are around 2,000 different species, and it is possible to cross breed some of them, but it is highly frowned upon by scientists and hobbyists alike. The only reason I can really think of as to why we dont commonly suggest that there are more than one species of human may be that it would be a legal nightmare to legislate for it.
There isan element of consent in deciding whether something is the same species, family etc. The lies are blurred often. I think it's more about politeness and civil rest when it comes to humans. There's social factors involved which make it morally better to say we are different races, not species. But it is alarming how stereotypical each and every race is. Why I s**t myself when I see a Hun.
“But…but…Professor Mayer told me that race was a social construct and there are no differences”…
Many hybrids are sterile; that does not seem to be the case with humans, though...although apparently some of us do have some Neanderthal genes. Why is it frowned upon to hybridize spiders, etc? Botanists do it all the time with plants. I can see that hybridizing humans with animals would be a bad thing, though, because if such were possible the legal status of the offspring would be unclear, and their nature could be dangerously unpredictable. The "dangerously unpredictable" part could explain a lot of racial tensions, IMO.
Because it’s seen as endangering two ancient and distinct species, to create a batch of spiderlings that destroy the genetic lineage of those two species. This often creates a disappointing hybrid whose future spiderlings cannot be predicted in terms of their look and predisposition.
You can take any population of humans and successfully interbreed them with any other population. This means that they are the same species. We may have been able to interbreed with Neanderthals but it most likely failed most of the time.
Homo Sapiens are a species, Race is a trait within said species. Arachnids are a group with many individual species...the term "Spider" in not a scientific designation. Humans breed freely within the species successfully, Arachnids do not breed outside of their individual species, and instead tend to eat each other if such a thing is attempted...thus it is not. By making this statement you answer your own question...there is a very good reason you call humans a species.
Yes. Humans are a collective species and within that there are lots of sub species of humans. Just like ants are all ants, but you have different species of ant.
Hence I said successfully. Lions and Tigers can interbreed but the offspring are usually infertile and thus it's not considered successful. Very rarely they'll produce a fertile offspring but not often enough to keep a population going.
There are no "Sub Species" in the Homo sapiens animal...again Race is a trait and nothing more. If there were sub species reproduction would be a rarity and considered abnormal. That certain humans consider interracial breeding to be abnormal is opinion rather than biological fact.
I guess it's semantics to an extent then. Is it fair to then say there are different sub species of homo sapien, rather than the notion that there aren't? - - - Updated - - - What do you mean a "trait"?
"Trait (biology) In biology, a trait or character is a feature of an organism. The term phenotype is sometimes used as a synonym for trait in common use, but strictly speaking, does not indicate the trait, but the state of that trait (e.g., the trait eye color has the phenotypes blue, brown and hazel). A trait may be any single feature or quantifiable measurement of an organism. However, the most useful traits for genetic analysis are present in different forms in different individuals. A visible trait is the final product of many molecular and biochemical processes." http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/trait_(biology).htm
Ants are matriarchal and ruled by a queen who can either decide to kill males or not depending on her desires. Radical feminists remind me of ants with their dogma of misandry.
I recall being taught, but did not independently verify, that the intra-racial differences genetically are greater than interracial differences. Africans in particular have more genetic diversity, as would be expected. So with race we're just categorizing based upon what is most visually obvious. It wouldn't be much different than categorizing by eye or hair color. As for tigers and lions. My understanding is that it's not just offspring but fertile offspring that can interbreed and reproduce indefinitely in the context of one or more large populations, which afaik is not how ligers are.
I think there is far more physical difference between Europeans than Africans personally. - - - Updated - - - But they were.
Not really. Basically speaking, the better you know African-Americans, the more differences you start to notice. Same goes with Asians. It's just a matter of familiarity, and knowing what you are looking for in terms of differences.
Not saying that they are all clones. But absolutely there is far more true diversity among Europeans than Africans.
No. Africans are much more diverse than any other group of people. They have more gene diversity by far. Everyone else is the result of small groups of Africans moving out of Africa and taking only a small sample of the DNA diversity with them.
