3 ms·

> by the artificial lines we've drawn in the sand. You make it sound like the distinction was completely arbitrary or something. There are anatomical differen

> by the artificial lines we've drawn in the sand. You make it sound like the distinction was completely arbitrary or something. There are anatomical differences that justified the separation into different species, from a classical point of view. Now, the concept of species is blurry and genetic analysis shows that Neanderthal and Sapiens did interbreed. Nevertheless, the anatomical characteristics of Sapiens remained, and none of the Neanderthal ones. Therefore it seems to me that the distinction into different species remains pertinent.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pvaldes 9y ago
> none of the anatomical characteristics of Neanderthal remained Red hair and green eyes came probably from them
fish_fan 9y ago
Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated? I was under the impression it was more useful to define which groups of animals could produce viable offspring. In this definition, neanderthals would be a subspecies, not a distinct species in itself. This seems both more correct and more useful.
- grondilu 9y ago
  > Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated? It's still the best you have in most cases, notably in the fossil record. I'm no expert but I believe that the concept of species is becoming more and more problematic nowadays. There is a wikipedia article about it[1]. So, it's complicated. That being said, even if Neanderthal seems to have interbred with Sapiens, as far as I know, nobody seriously thinks this should revise its status as a separate species. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
danieltillett 9y ago
Let me introduce you to the Occipital bun [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bun
Meditato 9y ago
>Nevertheless, the anatomical characteristics of Sapiens remained, and none of the Neanderthal ones My occipital bun, my supraorbital ridge, my stocky height, my skin, and acetylcholine dominant default mode network would like a word with you.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pvaldes 9y ago

> none of the anatomical characteristics of Neanderthal remained Red hair and green eyes came probably from them

fish_fan 9y ago

Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated? I was under the impression it was more useful to define which groups of animals could produce viable offspring. In this definition, neanderthals would be a subspecies, not a distinct species in itself. This seems both more correct and more useful.

grondilu 9y ago
> Err, isn't use of morphological classification to define species of animals super outdated? It's still the best you have in most cases, notably in the fossil record. I'm no expert but I believe that the concept of species is becoming more and more problematic nowadays. There is a wikipedia article about it[1]. So, it's complicated. That being said, even if Neanderthal seems to have interbred with Sapiens, as far as I know, nobody seriously thinks this should revise its status as a separate species. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

danieltillett 9y ago

Let me introduce you to the Occipital bun [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bun

Meditato 9y ago

>Nevertheless, the anatomical characteristics of Sapiens remained, and none of the Neanderthal ones My occipital bun, my supraorbital ridge, my stocky height, my skin, and acetylcholine dominant default mode network would like a word with you.