9 ms·
I think the problem is the "species" construction itself. Remember, it's completely made up by people and has no obligation to reflect the sometimes messy reali
by gregwtmtno 11y ago
I think the problem is the "species" construction itself. Remember, it's completely made up by people and has no obligation to reflect the sometimes messy reality on the ground.
I'm more interested in what we can learn about these people (using the term for convenience) than what they are called. When did they live? How much genetic distance is there between us and them? Do modern humans carry some of their genes? Could they speak?
- elros 11y agoI do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Apparently, though, it's not that simple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
- kenbellows 11y agoThat's a problematic criterion when trying to classify long extinct species. We can hypothesize, and perhaps there is a point where we can confidently say "These two definitely couldn't mate" (e.g. Australopithecus afarensis and Homo neanderthalensis), but there's always going to be a large gray area. In fact, here's an interesting quote from the OP article: > A small group of Homo sapiens left Africa 60,000 years ago and settled the rest of the world, replacing the other human species they encountered (with a small amount of interbreeding). So actually, it seems we are confident that Homo sapiens was capable of reproduction with some of the other "species" we've identified.
- gregwtmtno 11y agoYeah, not that simple at all. To me though, the problem isn't the difficulty of defining the species. The problem is peoples' need to classify things (a problem that goes far beyond scientific classifications). But I recognize that I'm in the minority in that view.
- ceejayoz 11y ago> I do seem to remember being taught in school that the definition of species is "organisms that can reproduce and generate fertile offspring". Which is problematic for extinct animals. We have no way of knowing if modern humans would be able to produce offspring with Neanderthals, for example.
- JulianMorrison 11y agoActually, I think we do, DNA, and the answer is yes.
- mklim 11y agoThe current body of evidence suggests that we could and did, since Neanderthal DNA is present in some modern humans [1]. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33226416 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33226416
- RogtamBar 11y agoNo, we know humans have produced viable offspring with neanderthals in very recent evolutionary past (30,000 years). While the human species has changed during that time, no doubt we are still interfertile with neanderthals.
- dean 11y agoIf you do a genetic test with 23andMe, they will tell you exactly what percentage of Neanderthal DNA you have.
- hugh4 11y agoIt's easy to see why it's a problem when we look into the past. Presumably, every creature should be considered to the be the same species as its parents. But go far enough back and your N-great grandparents are undeniably a different species. If we had a record of every organism that had ever lived, trying to classify them into "species" would be a ridiculous task -- regardless of how punctuated-equilibriumy things are. Since the fossil record is fairly spotty, it's only a slightly ridiculous task.
- JulianMorrison 11y agoSpecies is really a misapplied concept when you look at one current lifeform's ancestry. Everything is a "ring species" with some sufficiently old ancestor.