# The Human Specie, why are we all the same?



## AUSHERP (Mar 15, 2011)

I recently read that Kenyan people's lungs are actually 30% larger than say, an Australian's.
Their average height is taller than ours and their legs are longer proportionally in relation to their torso. Isn't this coupled with the difference in pigmentation, habitat, diet and lifestyle enough to divide us in more than race/locality?
Should we not be Homo Sapiens Australiaensis and Homo Sapiens kenyaensis?
I have also read that races were considered ssp. until the 70's I think it was, but further genetic testing proved it wrong. Which then brings us to, Let's say 
Nephrurus Levis Levis and N.L.Pilbarensis, are we so politically correct that we cannot divide humans the same way?
Just a topic I always find interesting, purely scientific. Not derogatory in any way.


----------



## Mudimans (Mar 15, 2011)

I love this question. It's political correctness gone mad. We are taught that all people are the same when clearly we are different because to say otherwise would label you as a racist. It will be interesting to follow this thread I think


----------



## ezekiel86 (Mar 15, 2011)

I think you need to watch Ancient Aliens S1 and S2...
You will lose your mind watching the genetics and DNA parts.... :O


----------



## James..94 (Mar 15, 2011)

AHHHHHHH I'm a hybrid :O


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 15, 2011)

It seems every time I raise this question it ends in a racial war, but that is obviously not what we are talking about here. I thought posting here amongst people who understand the fundamentals of ssp. In relation to reptiles we could have a serious discussion.
@ mudimans, It is political correctness gone mad!!
@ ezekiel86 I'll look it up.....


----------



## ezekiel86 (Mar 15, 2011)

Ausherp you will love it ..but need 2 start at S1 E1 and then you will have to watch E2 and then like after E18ish you will be hanging for S3 like everyone else that started watching it ... Its an Eye opener


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 15, 2011)

Different races are probably still considered ssp by many but actually putting the label on it wouldn't make any difference to whether we actually are or not. and where would you stop. language and accent are reflective of the environment in which we live, so do we seperate our own countrymen H._s_. _westaustraliaensis. _I don't think it's just about political correctness but rather the to bloody hard basket.


----------



## cris (Mar 15, 2011)

It isnt possible to be racist, humans arnt considered seperate subspecies, they are just differant locality types which are being destroyed by outbreeding (i dont have a problem with this hybrid chicks are usually hot).

In order to accurately split humans into subspecies you would first need a clear definition of what a subspecies is. This doesnt exist, but even under what does exist i find it hard to see how humans could be accurately split. There is no practical benifit of splitting humans into differant taxa either.


----------



## Defective (Mar 15, 2011)

hey ausherp,
this to has bothered me like why sudanese peeps make better basketballers than a marjority of white people? here is a link i found that may help in the possible explaination. apparently it has to do with DNA
Confusions About Human Races


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 15, 2011)

This is nothing new....

Aboriginies were once considered a seperate species.. wonder what happened to them???

American indians were once considered a seperate species... hmmmm

South American indians were seen as a seperate species by the spanish..... are they still there???

I'm pretty sure the political government of Germany in the 1930s - 40s also used their scientist to classify the aryan race as a seperate human species... anybody got a copy of their findings, results and testing.. I can't find any info on it for the life of me if they proved it or not.

So you see this has been done before over the centuries......

Sub species??? or should it be sub morals?? maybe sub inteliigence???


----------



## GeckoJosh (Mar 15, 2011)

So are white people Hypomelanistic Africans?


----------



## cris (Mar 15, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> This is nothing new....
> 
> Aboriginies were once considered a seperate species.. wonder what happened to them???
> 
> ...


 
I havnt heard of differant humans having full species status, but a few hundred years ago people didnt even know about evolution etc. so its easy to imagine they wernt perfect at taxonomy.

By the standards used by many splitters it quite easy to see why humans used to be split into subspecies. Especially when populations were practically isolated. Depending on where you draw the line between differant subspecies will define if humans are all the same subspecies. I suspect for practical reasons subspecies will either be made redundant or simply defined so all humans can stay lumped together, by the time an accurate accepted definition can be formed.


----------



## -Peter (Mar 15, 2011)

Because we are genetically one species, like selective and line breeding a single species you end up with genetic mutations. The aspects that are being touted here as indicators of race or ssp are mutations. White skin is a mutation, not a new species. At one point in our history there were probably less than 3000 females alive. Thats a very small genetic pool over a very large area.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 15, 2011)

But body size, accent, limb development, hair growth ETC could be considered as indicators of spp.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 15, 2011)

Geckoman said:


> So are white people Hypomelanistic Africans?


 
Other way around... Africans are hypermelanistic humans as the basis of normality throughout human history is "white".... thought that would have been clear given our recorded history... It would be the same as the _Morelia_ sp. _Morelia spilota spilota_ being archetypal and everything else from there a sub-species...


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 15, 2011)

And thats why we don't split


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Mar 15, 2011)

I don't understand the need for political correctness... we're all sub-species of one kind or another. :lol: Some people just take themselves too seriously. Guaranteed they're mutts.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 15, 2011)

Crystal..Discus said:


> I don't understand the need for political correctness... we're all sub-species of one kind or another. :lol: Some people just take themselves too seriously. Guaranteed they're mutts.


 

Yeah... but you would'nt want the purist segregating you or calling you ugly now would you just cause your a hybrid or should i say intergrade lol.

Imagine all the justifications we can give towards each other when we are divided into sub-species... oh wait 

On a side note.... Is this why Madona and Angelina keep adopting kids, are they just keeping different localities/sub-species of humans in their collection?


----------



## Defective (Mar 15, 2011)

wouldn't it be a mixture of interbreeding just like with animals?? have sexual relations with a pom and your french your going to get a bit genetically from each, so why cant the same happen but generations past


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Mar 15, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> Yeah... but you would'nt want the purist segregating you or calling you ugly now would you just cause your a hybrid or should i say intergrade lol.


 
They already do that :lol:


----------



## Fuscus (Mar 15, 2011)

cris said:


> (i dont have a problem with this hybrid chicks are usually hot).


 I think I'll keep you away from my daughters :shock:


----------



## Elapidae1 (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm waiting for a Tasmanian to get in on the debate. Wouldn't want to be the one sorting that out


----------



## elogov (Mar 15, 2011)

red-ink said:


> on a side note.... Is this why madona and angelina keep adopting kids, are they just keeping different localities/sub-species of humans in their collection?


 
lol!


----------



## dihsmaj (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm an integrade.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 15, 2011)

I didn't read every single post here - but this one TV series answers every question - and convincingly so.

Dr Alice Roberts is very good (to both look at and listen to).

Interview: Alice Roberts on The Incredible Human Journey - Telegraph

If you haven't seen it - then I think it may change your feelings about where we come from!


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 15, 2011)

If the same rules are followed as in reptiles then different races are ssp. I think the difference is, animals don't cross breed as readily as humans so the specie boundaries in the animal kingdom are more defined than in human pops. Also, being sentient beings and able to argue the point as we are, makes for too many scientific opinions and moral do's and don'ts for there to be an agreed outcome.
When we call Cheynei a ssp. it can't argue...... even though it carries the same genetic code as a spilota.

More food for thought.
Human taxonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Mar 15, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> Other way around... Africans are hypermelanistic humans as the basis of normality throughout human history is "white".... thought that would have been clear given our recorded history... It would be the same as the _Morelia_ sp. _Morelia spilota spilota_ being archetypal and everything else from there a sub-species...



Lol, please tell me you are joking. If not, I would suggest boning up on your anthropology before making a statement like this. It makes you sound, well, ... un-read.


----------



## GeckoJosh (Mar 15, 2011)

Snake_Whisperer said:


> Lol, please tell me you are joking. If not, I would suggest boning up on your anthropology before making a statement like this. It makes you sound, well, ... un-read.


One would hope so lol


----------



## KaotikJezta (Mar 15, 2011)

ezekiel86 said:


> I think you need to watch Ancient Aliens S1 and S2...
> You will lose your mind watching the genetics and DNA parts.... :O



Thanks for that, I just went and looked it up as well


----------



## -Peter (Mar 15, 2011)

I am astounded by the stupidity of the majority of posters in this thread. Hang on, is it April 1st already?


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 15, 2011)

How so peter?


----------



## -Peter (Mar 16, 2011)

As already stated, its a non starter, we are morphs not ssp or, the now redundant, race. There is ample proven literature around and as stated by another poster basic anthropoly wouldn't go astray. Its fine to ask the question but the majority go off on some stoner tangent and ignore the real answer. Then there are the Red Inks, whoo whoo!


----------



## slim6y (Mar 16, 2011)

Also in that BBC documentary series (The Incredible Human Journey with Dr Alice Roberts - my hero) she proves to a Chinese doctorate - who has spent his ENTIRE lifes work devoted to proving that the Chinese people came from a different group of men (not of African descent). However, right there, on TV she disproves his theory and his lifes work and he has to accept that the Chinese people come from the same group of Africans who went on the incredible journey...

A thoroughly entertaining watch - and something (by the sounds of things) many of you could learn a thing or two from....


----------



## lace90 (Mar 16, 2011)

I do a lot of taxonomy in my field (entomology rather than anthrapology however...lol) and 'species' is an arbitrary term that allows humans to place fauna/flora into boxes for our own benefit...I agree it is important (how can we have knowledge of something if we have not named it?) and so description of species are important. However, what is deemed a species, rather than a sub-species, is decided by the scientists who are doing the research - and has need to be made clear by their 'species concept' and have enough evidence to be accepted. Generally, we can say that all people can be classed as one species due to being able to interbreed - geographical boundaries were not in place long enough for genetic divergence to be different enough to cease this. There may be large differences in our morphology - but we have retained enough genetic similarities that it is obsolete.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 16, 2011)

Snake_Whisperer said:


> Lol, please tell me you are joking. If not, I would suggest boning up on your anthropology before making a statement like this. It makes you sound, well, ... un-read.


 
Joke mate... I was going on the basis of recorded history and not actual facts....



-Peter said:


> As already stated, its a non starter, we are morphs not ssp or, the now redundant, race. There is ample proven literature around and as stated by another poster basic anthropoly wouldn't go astray. Its fine to ask the question but the majority go off on some stoner tangent and ignore the real answer. Then there are the Red Inks, whoo whoo!


 
Going by us being a morph of a redundant race Peter... can be said for all species on the planet.. The homonid family is not a straight line as most people seem to consider. We could have branched off from any part of the tree...

Obviously people don't seem to understand that sub-classifying the Human species throughout history has led to some great atrocities... I know that's not the point of this thread but these kinds of discussions (in history) masked by science has always been the prelude to de-humanising other people in order to justify.... well lets not go there.


----------



## -Peter (Mar 16, 2011)

Red-Ink said:


> Joke mate... I was going on the basis of recorded history and not actual facts....
> 
> 
> 
> Going by us being a morph of a redundant race Peter... can be said for all species on the planet..



Misquote, re read please, I was referring to the term race being redundant, not we being morphs of a redundant race. There is punctuation .

ps, I am very pleased that you where joking, you really scared me.


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 16, 2011)

Well going on the rules of Dr. Alice, there should be little to no Reptile ssp either. That's the question I was asking and why I used the Nephrurus Genus as an example. If we are all the same, merely divided by location, colour, lifestyle and everything in between than so are our scaled friends.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 16, 2011)

It comes down to a ethical and moral issue for dividing us as a species.... stems to reason that if we start dividing ourselves into ssp. based on geographical and morphological attributes then the results aren't going to be pretty. We break that common thread we have with each other. In our nature it don't take much for us to do harm and commit atrocities to each other... in most cases a basic difference in opinions and beliefs is enough reason to well (I'll leave it at that)....... Could you imagine the things we would do to each other when we can use the justification that we are not even the same spp?? 

Your absolutle right though the same taxonomy methods applied to other species applied to us can justify us being devided into ssp. as your example the Nephrurus and Morelias on the other.


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 16, 2011)

Thats right it comes down to morals, feelings and political correctness. I know the arguments and wars that would be fought if we were different animals to one and other. If we could not talk and were not so advanced and there was a greater power than us on earth we would be classed into subsepecies regardless of our genetic code because these are the rules followed in the animal kingdom.


----------



## cris (Mar 16, 2011)

AUSHERP said:


> Well going on the rules of Dr. Alice, there should be little to no Reptile ssp either. That's the question I was asking and why I used the Nephrurus Genus as an example. If we are all the same, merely divided by location, colour, lifestyle and everything in between than so are our scaled friends.


 
IMO subspecies are mostly pointless and detract from the reality where a population will generally have a number of genetic similarities that dont exist in other populations. If you want to bring taxonomy down to the level of subspecies you really should go even further and name every population that is distinct even if only by a single gene. Im finding it hard to think of examples that wont turn this into a debate about snake hybrids :lol:

People not being put into subspecies isnt really about political correctness, its more to do with them not really being valid as seperate subspecies by what most would consider the definiton to be.


----------



## AUSHERP (Mar 16, 2011)

But what is a valid reason to ssp? Using Nephrurus genus as an example, tell me how its's different.


----------



## Pike01 (Mar 16, 2011)

Alot of people seem to be going off phenotype rather than genotype.Look at dogs, their range of phenotypes far excedes humans, but they are all the same species.


----------



## cris (Mar 16, 2011)

AUSHERP said:


> But what is a valid reason to ssp? Using Nephrurus genus as an example, tell me how its's different.


 
There is no clear definition of what a ssp. is. if you google look at wikipedia etc. you can get a rough idea, but virtually every taxonomist will have a differant opinion (unless they cant think for themselves).


----------



## junglepython2 (Mar 16, 2011)

You can't even get a definition of species that works in all situations and everyone agree's on. You have even less chance with subspecies.


----------



## cris (Mar 16, 2011)

junglepython2 said:


> You can't even get a definition of species that works in all situations and everyone agree's on. You have even less chance with subspecies.


 
Exactly, life hasnt evolved in a way to be neatly put in restricted boxes and named. Phylogeny is important, but taxonomy at a ssp. level is about as important as naming your pet snakes JMO :lol: 

IMO Taxonomy is only really useful on a broad scale, at least until we can turn it into genetic maths(which is still going to be pretty useless).


----------

