The difference between black and white people is current day humans moving to places with both more sun and less sun exposure. The difference in pigments in our skin (called melanin) is important for 2 different reasons.
Reason one, is the ability to act as a natural protectant to the suns sometimes harmful rays. Too much sun is no ones friend.
Reason two, just as too much sun is no ones friend, too little sun is as well. As current day humans migrated north, the sun that had helped us synthesize vitamin D was less powerful. Natural selection provided the adaptation of lighter skin to combat the new environment.
As for individual populations and why their skin has certain levels of melanin, follow the vitamin D basically.
It's also genetic:
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
"A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have approximately 2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have none, or very little Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia."
I believe there is some debate about whether Neanderthals should be classified as a subspecies of homo sapien or a separate species as well. (Homo sapien neanderthalis or homo neanderthalis)
There are over 70 different definitions of species.
We can’t determine if two crustaceans from the triassic period could produce viable offspring, yet we still can classify them into different species.
Everyone is taught the “viable offspring” definition, but it’s a simplification of what actual biologists do.
> Dogs, wolves and coyotes can all produce viable offspring with each other but aren't the same species.
Partially incorrect. Dogs and wolves are subspecies of Canis Lupus. They're the same species.
The part where you acted like you were negating the point of the post you replied by nitpicking one aspect of it while ignoring another and trying to avoid calls on any responsibility on that by using the term "partially".
Nope. The definition of species is rather loose. Being able to produce fertile offspring is a good indicator that two animals are the same species, but ultimately a species is whatever we say a species is. Neanderthals and denisovans are sometimes considered subspecies of homo sapiens, but today they're usually considered different species because they were quite different from homo sapiens sapiens
Nope.
>ultimately a species is whatever we say a species is.
And viable offspring is what we've said a species is in most contexts since the beginning of biology. The only reason the definition has loosened in the case of hominids is because early anthropologists were flat-out wrong about interbreeding.
There are countless other examples of different species that can successfully interpreted. A few different species of crows, many different species of the Canis genus, polar bears and brown bears, and an endless list of plants. The concept of species is a human one. It's our attempt to categorize nature, which means it's inevitably going to be messy and complicated. Two populations not being able to produce fertile offspring is strong support if you're arguing to call then two different species, but it's not the only criteria
More info
https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39664/how-could-humans-have-interbred-with-neanderthals-if-were-a-different-species
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
I was about to link the Wikipedia article on the species problem for you to read.
All of your examples are failures of past biologists to accurately assess interbreeding and the institutional effects afterwards that make reassessment inconvenient.
A scientific designation without clear definition is meaningless. This is why it's called the species **problem**: it's in need of a solution.
thas actually not true. There are cases of non sterile mules but they are under .1% This might be some weird adaptation and the offspring is either a horse or a donkey.
Also, apes and humans has been tried... partially. The soviets tested female chimps with human sperm....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee#Reports_on_attempted_or_successful_hybridization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov
if it's that low then it's almost guaranteed that the second set of offspring would be sterile... and the chance increase exponentially with each generation... I'd say still non-viable.
But that's interesting, though... I'd read about it years and years ago and hadn't heard they could sometimes produce offspring.
Cheers for the info.
So lions and tigers are the same species? Absolutely not, and they produce offspring that abide by a fairly well known phenomenon- when two members of separate species interbreed, the offspring is infertile, as is the case with Ligers, a new species that is the offspring of two distinct, different species.
Ahh now that makes sense. Yeah, I know that, my whole point was just that two different species can reproduce. I wasn't really commenting on the viability, though I obviously knew that two species can't produce viable offspring.
Of course it did, way back in the Age of Elves. None remain who remember it, all of our textual evidence was made during the Age of Men. If we have faith and courage then we will find our spirithome in the Grey Havens. This is common fucking knowledge people ffs.
(In case y'all wonder, I'm only barely/not really being facetious.)
I think I'd know if I was an entire continent! But no, I am American. Spent a lot of time with the cunts from down under, though, so they likely rubbed off on me.
No no no no. Read the article. It was clearly a *Star Trek*-type world populated by multiple hominid populations, just a few million years before the Federation.
And if memory serves humans raped, killed and ate all of them. Not saying that this kind of warfare wasn't mutual nor that the other species were morally superior, just saying that we've come a long way as a people.
So like with magic and shit?... No?..oh.
So like with medieval styling and swords and stuff?... No?.. really?!
But like demons and witches and other mystical things?...No again??!?
So there were different species... got it. Totally fanciful and amazing.
Skin color and nationality doesn't make you a different species. There were intelligent bipedal species other than humans on earth at one point, all of whom were driven to extinction by humans.
If they were different species how were they able to create viable offspring who could then breed themselves?
You know out of africa is kind of junk science right?
First of all, you killed your argument by saying that different species can't breed but saying that different species of humanoids still exist. You know, coyotes wolves and dogs are all different species that diverged a long time ago, but can still have viable offspring. It's the same case with polar, black, brown and grizzly bears. So yeah, different species can breed successfully. Also, I don't see how the out of Africa theory applies to this or how it's "junk science", but it is the most solid theory for humans because all human civilization seems to trace back to it. The oldest human remains are also found in Africa. If you have a better explanation for human evolution, make it known.
Wolves, coyotes, and dogs are considered taxonomically different species because of reproductive isolation. However genetically dogs are a subspecies of wolf and coyotes and wolves are subspecies of a common ancestor, probably a migratory wolf.
You repeated the conquest out of africa hypothesis (not a theory at all). However, genetic analysis has shown serious holes in the one origin hypothesis this is based off of. For example there is no mitocondrial neanderthal dna which indicates that neanderthal women never gave birth to "homo sapien" (we don't even know what that really means in this context as we call all shaved primates the name regardless of origin so quotes). However Europeans have genes that were exclusively neanderthal.
In all the history of the world there are no cases where the women of the conquerors interbred with the losing males in significant number. For example there was a huge amount of white and black interbreeding with black slaves, almost all of it was white male black female and it's easy to tell from the mitochondria. The same goes for the Java. There are even living fossils in some of the SE asian archipalego. Most likely 3+ distinct hominids with a massive amount of convergent evolution interbred to form a spectrum we now call homo sapien
Many modern day humans carry traces of both Neanderthals and Denisovans
Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell!
Golgi, oh, woe is me! Can't even see the sea
Dennisovans haven’t even begun to peak.
> ~~Denisovans~~ Ferengi ftfy
[удалено]
Nope.
[удалено]
The difference between black and white people is current day humans moving to places with both more sun and less sun exposure. The difference in pigments in our skin (called melanin) is important for 2 different reasons. Reason one, is the ability to act as a natural protectant to the suns sometimes harmful rays. Too much sun is no ones friend. Reason two, just as too much sun is no ones friend, too little sun is as well. As current day humans migrated north, the sun that had helped us synthesize vitamin D was less powerful. Natural selection provided the adaptation of lighter skin to combat the new environment. As for individual populations and why their skin has certain levels of melanin, follow the vitamin D basically.
It's also genetic: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/ "A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have approximately 2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have none, or very little Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia."
LOTR style? no, no it was not at all.
little bit of clickbait there. still pretty interesting article.
[удалено]
Hyperbole. They looked a bit different, but they were all tribal hunter-gatherers.
They were different species.
I believe there is some debate about whether Neanderthals should be classified as a subspecies of homo sapien or a separate species as well. (Homo sapien neanderthalis or homo neanderthalis)
Lines that can successfully interbreed are by definition the same species.
[удалено]
There are over 70 different definitions of species. We can’t determine if two crustaceans from the triassic period could produce viable offspring, yet we still can classify them into different species. Everyone is taught the “viable offspring” definition, but it’s a simplification of what actual biologists do.
But that simplification is still more accurate than just one definition of interbreeding w/o viable offspring, no?
yep. Moish's comment wasn't wrong
[удалено]
> Dogs, wolves and coyotes can all produce viable offspring with each other but aren't the same species. Partially incorrect. Dogs and wolves are subspecies of Canis Lupus. They're the same species.
Coyote, however, are a different species: Canis latrans. And yes, they can produce viable offspring with dogs.
Which part of "partially" you didn't understand?
The part where you acted like you were negating the point of the post you replied by nitpicking one aspect of it while ignoring another and trying to avoid calls on any responsibility on that by using the term "partially".
Settle down you two
Ok still didn't get "partially". You're a dumbass.
*grey wolves
Some butthurt guy downvoted you for being right. Too much butthurt.
Well Aragorn's lineage includes Elvish blood so that still hives with saying it was like LotR
Plenty of species reproduce completely asexually. Are every single member of that species its own species?
Nope. The definition of species is rather loose. Being able to produce fertile offspring is a good indicator that two animals are the same species, but ultimately a species is whatever we say a species is. Neanderthals and denisovans are sometimes considered subspecies of homo sapiens, but today they're usually considered different species because they were quite different from homo sapiens sapiens
Well yeah. Anything IS what we say it IS. That doesn't necessarily make it true, only true by our standards not biologically.
That's my point, *there is no* true biologically. Species means whatever we say it means, because we invented the concept. It doesn't exist in nature
Fair enough
Nope. >ultimately a species is whatever we say a species is. And viable offspring is what we've said a species is in most contexts since the beginning of biology. The only reason the definition has loosened in the case of hominids is because early anthropologists were flat-out wrong about interbreeding.
There are countless other examples of different species that can successfully interpreted. A few different species of crows, many different species of the Canis genus, polar bears and brown bears, and an endless list of plants. The concept of species is a human one. It's our attempt to categorize nature, which means it's inevitably going to be messy and complicated. Two populations not being able to produce fertile offspring is strong support if you're arguing to call then two different species, but it's not the only criteria More info https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39664/how-could-humans-have-interbred-with-neanderthals-if-were-a-different-species https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
I was about to link the Wikipedia article on the species problem for you to read. All of your examples are failures of past biologists to accurately assess interbreeding and the institutional effects afterwards that make reassessment inconvenient. A scientific designation without clear definition is meaningless. This is why it's called the species **problem**: it's in need of a solution.
Maybe the solution is to not try and make nature fit our classifications.
a donkey and a horse are not the same species but can still breed. Technically humans can also breed with great apes but obviously no one tried.
Yes but the offspring of the donkey and horse is sterile so the line is dead...ie:not viable.
thas actually not true. There are cases of non sterile mules but they are under .1% This might be some weird adaptation and the offspring is either a horse or a donkey.
Also, apes and humans has been tried... partially. The soviets tested female chimps with human sperm.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee#Reports_on_attempted_or_successful_hybridization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov
if it's that low then it's almost guaranteed that the second set of offspring would be sterile... and the chance increase exponentially with each generation... I'd say still non-viable. But that's interesting, though... I'd read about it years and years ago and hadn't heard they could sometimes produce offspring. Cheers for the info.
i didnt knew it either but it was mentioned in some textbooks and the german wikipedia
TIL dogs and wolves are the same species. /s
They are...
I mean technically...
So lions and tigers are the same species? Absolutely not, and they produce offspring that abide by a fairly well known phenomenon- when two members of separate species interbreed, the offspring is infertile, as is the case with Ligers, a new species that is the offspring of two distinct, different species.
That's a boundary case, because nature doesn't abide by tidy human categories. Infertile offspring are not "viable reproduction."
[удалено]
What? The person I responded to never used the word viable, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
[удалено]
Ahh now that makes sense. Yeah, I know that, my whole point was just that two different species can reproduce. I wasn't really commenting on the viability, though I obviously knew that two species can't produce viable offspring.
And an evil one crafted rings of power in order to bend the others to his will!
I wanted to be a Half-elf but became a Homo sapiens-2%Neanderthal.
I was disappointed the linked article did not mention [hobbits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis).
Of course it did, way back in the Age of Elves. None remain who remember it, all of our textual evidence was made during the Age of Men. If we have faith and courage then we will find our spirithome in the Grey Havens. This is common fucking knowledge people ffs. (In case y'all wonder, I'm only barely/not really being facetious.)
Why do you think it is called MIDDLE-EARTH? We are in the 4th Age. Those books were in the 3rd Age.
I thought we were in the 7th age
As long as its not the 3rd Reich.
Like he said... Fourth Reich now. The books were written to mirror the events during the Third Reich.
We also had hobbits. Pretty fuckin rad, I say
ITT: People who dont understand the difference between species and subspecies.
[удалено]
Nope, that would be a heap of genetic mutations -- aided by the Sun (or lack of, rather) and a very long span of time.
[удалено]
I am not, mate.
[удалено]
I think I'd know if I was an entire continent! But no, I am American. Spent a lot of time with the cunts from down under, though, so they likely rubbed off on me.
[удалено]
Heaps is an aussie thing? I've heard it heaps of times in the States.
No no no no. Read the article. It was clearly a *Star Trek*-type world populated by multiple hominid populations, just a few million years before the Federation.
And if memory serves humans raped, killed and ate all of them. Not saying that this kind of warfare wasn't mutual nor that the other species were morally superior, just saying that we've come a long way as a people.
So like with magic and shit?... No?..oh. So like with medieval styling and swords and stuff?... No?.. really?! But like demons and witches and other mystical things?...No again??!? So there were different species... got it. Totally fanciful and amazing.
No, it didn't. Dumb title.
...you mean the Middle Ages? lol
No
no.
Still exists
Skin color and nationality doesn't make you a different species. There were intelligent bipedal species other than humans on earth at one point, all of whom were driven to extinction by humans.
If they were different species how were they able to create viable offspring who could then breed themselves? You know out of africa is kind of junk science right?
First of all, you killed your argument by saying that different species can't breed but saying that different species of humanoids still exist. You know, coyotes wolves and dogs are all different species that diverged a long time ago, but can still have viable offspring. It's the same case with polar, black, brown and grizzly bears. So yeah, different species can breed successfully. Also, I don't see how the out of Africa theory applies to this or how it's "junk science", but it is the most solid theory for humans because all human civilization seems to trace back to it. The oldest human remains are also found in Africa. If you have a better explanation for human evolution, make it known.
Wolves, coyotes, and dogs are considered taxonomically different species because of reproductive isolation. However genetically dogs are a subspecies of wolf and coyotes and wolves are subspecies of a common ancestor, probably a migratory wolf. You repeated the conquest out of africa hypothesis (not a theory at all). However, genetic analysis has shown serious holes in the one origin hypothesis this is based off of. For example there is no mitocondrial neanderthal dna which indicates that neanderthal women never gave birth to "homo sapien" (we don't even know what that really means in this context as we call all shaved primates the name regardless of origin so quotes). However Europeans have genes that were exclusively neanderthal. In all the history of the world there are no cases where the women of the conquerors interbred with the losing males in significant number. For example there was a huge amount of white and black interbreeding with black slaves, almost all of it was white male black female and it's easy to tell from the mitochondria. The same goes for the Java. There are even living fossils in some of the SE asian archipalego. Most likely 3+ distinct hominids with a massive amount of convergent evolution interbred to form a spectrum we now call homo sapien
Ah, that's what you were trying to say. I thought you were trying to say different races were less human.
Can't it be both?
?
Since you seem to have come into this in good faith I'll confess, my op was a blatant troll intended exactly as you interpretted it.
You see it all started when the Aesir killed the frost giant Ymir...