<p>No, you’re reading it right. That is what it says. </p>
<p>The theory that different race = different species, which is the premise that polygenism was founded on, is offensive to me for a number of reasons. </p>
<p>First of all, the science is simply wrong: the basic definition of ‘species’ is a group of organisms which can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Clearly, since there are bi-racial and multi-racial people who are fertile, humans must all be of one species. You are correct, there were different species of the genus homo in the past. However, there is no evidence that they interbred or produced fertile offspring. Merely that they co-existed and had a common ancestor. </p>
<p>Secondly, as I said before, this is a theory that has been used to justify slavery. I don’t trust people not to use it again.</p>
<p>“the basic definition of ‘species’ is a group of organisms which can interbreed to produce fertile offspring”</p>
<p>Of course the whole concept of species is an artificial construct just as race is, a sort of intellectual profiling. The fact is there is no clear line in the sand where one species begins and another ends. If there were then somebody’s mom and pop would have to be a different species in order for a new species to evolve.</p>
<p>This is one of those politically charged discussions that will get anyone who says modern man may not have evolved in Africa labeled a racist but the fact is it is not clear where modern man evolved. Certainly some of our hominid ancestors evolved in Africa but then we all crawled out of the ocean at some point if you follow the evolutionary tree back far enough.</p>
<p>Parts of the rift valley are ideal for preserving bones consequently we have found very old hominid remains there and finding some have looked for more. Surprise surprise you always seem to find stuff where you look for it and don’t find it where you are not looking for it. Fact is though there are old hominid remains in other parts of the world and modern man evolved very recently in the great scheme of things. I have always felt for various reasons, mostly to do with te fact that most of Africa seems to have been poplated fairly recently that modern man may have evolved in South Asia but then what do I know?</p>
<p>Interestingly Pakistani scientist are reporting that they have found a million year old human footprint. I don’t know that stacks up against mitocondrial DNA. I’ve had that explained to me by people who actually understand it and it seemed pretty good but am still a little skeptical about anything too pat.</p>
<p>Anyway you can’t discuss the science of any of this on a board like this anymore than you can discuss global warming because there is a politically correct answer. Some parties already have themselves worked up to a lather of indignation.</p>
<p>higherlead - of course, you’re correct, ‘species’ is an artificial construct. But there are significant enough differences in any and every genus to warrant a lower level of classification. </p>
<p>“If there were then somebody’s mom and pop would have to be a different species in order for a new species to evolve.”</p>
<p>No, that’s not how evolution works. A new species would evolve if, for example, a group of people were isolated on an island for a couple of million years and evolved traits specific to life on that island, to the extent that they could not physically interbreed with outsiders. </p>
<p>As to the footprint in Pakistan, it may be genuine, I don’t know. But to call it a ‘human’ footprint is incorrect. It is a footprint from homo erectus, an ancestor of our species, homo sapiens sapiens. That is, same genus, different species. </p>
<p>There did used to be a theory that modern man evolved in South Asia, actually. However, the numerous older fossil finds in Africa mean it is unlikely. It is theorised that homo erectus was the first hominid to leave Africa, although this is still under some debate. </p>
<p>What there is <em>not</em> a credible theory about is that homo sapiens sapiens (i.e. us) has evolved to the point that race = species. The definition of ‘species’ does not allow this to be the case. </p>
<p>Finally, I apologise if my posts are heated. I don’t intend them to be. The fact is:
the definition of ‘species’ does not allow for the theory that race = species. It is not my definition, it is the commonly accepted one.
history has shown that people will use Polygenism to justify slavery. Yes, this is the politically correct response, but in this case it’s backed up by science. ;)</p>
<p>“No, that’s not how evolution works. A new species would evolve if, for example, a group of people were isolated on an island for a couple of million years and evolved traits specific to life on that island, to the extent that they could not physically interbreed with outsiders.”</p>
<p>And at exactly which point in time would the species that originally landed on that island cease to be the species that landed there and become the new species? It would in fact be quite impossible to tell. There is no line in the sand that could be drawn.</p>
<p>“history has shown that people will use Polygenism to justify slavery”</p>
<p>People don’t need Polygenism to justify slavery and in fact it was never the justification for modern slavery. When the New World was discovered along with its people the question did immediately arise as to their humanity and the Pope ruled that they were human, did need to be baptized and brought to Christ because they were human, but could be enslaved nonetheless.</p>
<p>Nearly any idea is capable of being misused and has the potential of upsetting the established apple cart of a society for good or ill. However that is not a good enough reason to say some investigations are off limits, some questions can’t be asked let alone answered. Political Correctness is the modern Spanish Inquisition complete with the imputation of immoral motives.</p>
<p>Anyway the question at hand isn’t whether speciation is was or may ever occur in homo sapiens but where exactly he evolved.</p>
<p>“And at exactly which point in time would the species that originally landed on that island cease to be the species that landed there and become the new species? It would in fact be quite impossible to tell. There is no line in the sand that could be drawn.”</p>
<p>The line would be drawn at the stage where the people who developed in isolation on the island could no longer breed with outsiders. It is not an exact line, you’re correct. There are intermediate stages. However, if the end result is inability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, it would be defined as a new species. If you don’t like this definition of ‘species’, you’ll have to come up with one of your own!</p>
<p>As for justifications for slavery - you’re right, people don’t <em>need</em> a justification for it. But history has shown that they will <em>use</em> Polygenism as an excuse, an explanation, a justification. Since this justification is based on an incorrect understanding of the difference between ‘species’ and ‘genus’, and a lack of understanding of evolution, I see no problems whatsoever in criticising it as a scientific theory. </p>
<p>“Anyway the question at hand isn’t whether speciation is was or may ever occur in homo sapiens but where exactly he evolved.”</p>
<p>Yes. And Polygenists believe speciation is the result of seperate evolution.</p>
<p>^^ Yes. I don’t know very much about it, though, I’ve only read a little. What I’ve read seems to imply that so far, there’s no evidence of this, it’s merely a hypothesis. Obviously, if there does turn out to be evidence of it, it will have important ramifications for the classification system and the history of human evolution. </p>
<p>I’ve realised that this quote of mine: “And Polygenists believe speciation is the result of seperate evolution” is very badly phrased. It should say: Polygenists believe that skin colour/race is an outward sign that speciation has occurred in homo sapiens. They believe that this is due to totally seperate evolution between different groups of homo sapiens, and therefore race is equivalent to species.</p>
<p>So are Canis latrans and Canis lupus familiaris the same species? They are known to interbreed in the wild and produce fertile offspring. Is the Red Wolf even a species or is it a hybrid?</p>
<p>The line from species to sunspecies to race is a continuum. Eventually races if they can’t or won’t interbreed with other populations or if their offspring have reduced fertility either evolve into seperate subspecies or die out. Eventually and rather arbitrarily we end up reclassifying them as a seperate species. Occassionally we even slam to species back together into a single species. </p>
<p>It is entirely possble that modern man evolved outside of Africa from the hybridization of two lines of Homo. Or evolved in Africa from the introduction of a new line of genes from outside the continent. There are a lot of possibilities consistent with the facts.</p>
<p>The insurance ads are actually not far off at all. We are pretty certain the Neanderthal Man was a seperate species from looking at the taxonomy but if one were to get on the bus and sit down next to you you probably wouldn’t recognize him/her as a different species unless perhaps you tried to talk to him and if you were lonely enough…</p>
Polygenism was used as a justification for the enslavement of black people…</p>
<p>
Dogs are considered a subspecies of wolf, so their interbreeding doesn’t make them cross-species hybrids…</p>
<p>
I don’t understand why a race would evolve into a different subspecies when humans have 99% of their genes in common regardless of race. Race is nothing more than a color, so why would that cause a new subspecies to come about?</p>
<p>The Red Wolf is a hybrid. It was originally thought to be a seperate species, but genetic comparison shows it is actually a hybrid. As hotpiece101 says, it is not a cross-species hybrid. </p>
<p>The line from species to sub-species is a continuum. So are you now arguing that race is a sub-species rather than a true species? At the moment, regardless of what may happen in the future, race cannot equal species, any more than any other phenotype can. Humans of any skin tone can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That is a fact. And that fact is all that is required to say that humans all belong to the same species.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong (wouldn’t be the first time), but there also appears to be an advantage to inter-racial reproduction, in that many disease vulnerabilities, which share a genetic commonality in certain racial or ethnic groups, (such as Tay Sachs, and Sickle Cell), are greatly reduced in interracial children. </p>
<p>…Most vets seem to recognize that “muts” are heartier than many “pure breeds”. Of course, the analogy is somewhat flawed, since dogs can indeed be scientifically classified into different races within the species of Canine…</p>
I’m saying that if I physically have dark skin, I’m black. So black is my race. But under that skin, humans have 99% of their genes in common…So, race is nothing but a color.</p>
<p>“By the way, can the single origin crowd explain why tigers are native to Bengal, and Lions are in Africa ?”</p>
<p>Bengal tigers are a sub-species of panthera tigris, and are native to Bengal. Other sub-species are native to other parts of the world. The Massai lion is a sub-species of panthera leo and is native to East Africa. Again, other sub-species are native to other parts of the world. This is due to evolution.</p>
<p>An interesting point is the ‘liger’ which is a tiger/lion hybrid. They’re interesting because only the females are fertile, so you could never have a male-female liger breeding pair.</p>
<p>“I’m saying that if I physically have dark skin, I’m black.”</p>
<p>I used to assume that black skin = black race, until learning that East Asians with dark skin (many with skin much darker than mine has ever been) are classified as Caucasian—geographically Asian, but racially Caucasian. Must be the straight hair and “fine” facial features.</p>
<p>Ok, there are supposedly three “races” in humankind: Asian, Caucasian and Negro(id), right? If so, which category do the following fall into: Native Americans/Mexicans/South Americans? Hawaiians/Polynesians? Aboriginal Australians (Maori)? What genetic differences cause them to fall into their respective categories? In the grand scheme of things, how large a hill of beans does it all amount to?</p>
<p>Race isn’t about color. ^Poet, I believe other than Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid, the others are classified as native/aboriginal populations. I am probably a little off, because it has been a while since I have read any archeogenetic materials.</p>
<p>Race incorporates color, physical features, and self-identification. It’s mostly based on physical features. Therefore, while people may be racially different, they are almost genetically identical.</p>
<p>Ok, I should have said ‘race isn’t only about color’. Self identification can be iffy at times. Actually, genetic haplogroups can be a useful tool in separating populations. </p>
<p>I, for one, find Blumenbach’s classification system to be adequate.</p>