5 ms·

I have problems with this: 1. speciation (as I understand it) has a clear definition: if two populations can mate, then they're the same species. I don't think

I have problems with this: 1. speciation (as I understand it) has a clear definition: if two populations can mate, then they're the same species. I don't think preferences come into this - for lots of reasons (the vast number of possible interactions between populations, consent isn't required to produce offspring, etc). Saying "I don't think these people would fancy each other" isn't enough to define a new species. 2. the clear differences between specimens recovered does not reflect any clear difference between populations over time. The population of homo-ish living beings over the last 100,000 years is enormous, and we've recovered a tiny, miniscule, fraction of that. Classifying specimens is fine, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that those specimens represent actual populations of humans. The sample size is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. I think the effort to minimise the differences between early humans is admirable, and should be continued. We have a tiny, farcically small sample size of evidence to base any conjectures about early humans on. Being inclusive about Homo Sapiens because it stops nazis being dicks about race is a good thing.

pishpash 5y ago
The ability to mate is just one among numerous phenotypical characteristics. Whether to elevate it to anything special of course depends on the fuzzy boundary of whether or how much it is actioned on.
tete 5y ago
> if two populations can mate, then they're the same species Wouldn't that mean homo sapiens and neanderthals are the same species, given that many people have neanderthal genes and interbreeding is even a hypothesis for the extinction of the neanderthals?
rp1 5y ago
Canis latrans can mate with canis lupus and they are not considered the same species, just fyi.
neaden 5y ago
For 1. No, it is a lot more complicated than that. For instance, Dogs, Wolves, and Coyotes can all interbreed with each other. But even if you treat all dogs as one species, they can't actually all interbreed with eachother without human intervention due to size differences. Then there are ring species, which can breed with two separate species that cannot breed with each other. That isn't even getting into species that can asexually reproduce.
- antognini 5y ago
  There was a nice article in The Economist a few months back describing the issues with coming up with a good definition of "species": https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/on-the-origin-of-species/21803917 https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/on-the-origin-of-spe...
- catlikesshrimp 5y ago
  That concept (populations which can share genes) is for species which have sexual reproduction. For populations which require special conditions, you can talk about subspecies. But not for the rest of lifeforms. Bacteria reproduce by cloning themselves and they can share genes laterally (between adults). And viruses are really more similar to computer viruses with intended replication errors than a lifeform.
  - neaden 5y ago
    Well some species have both sexual and asexual reproduction, many trees can self fertilize or fertilize with another trees pollen for instance.
emmelaich 5y ago
Look into the wonderful world of Gene McCarthy, PhD. http://www.macroevolution.net/ http://www.macroevolution.net/ "Biology, hybrids, human origins and more"
3np 5y ago
1. Common counter-example: Horses and donkeys are considered separate species. They can produce offspring. There have been rare cases of that offspring being fertile. Not so clear.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Traditionally, two members of a genus (but of different species) make infertile offspring. Two members of a species make fertile offspring. ----- This isn't a "perfect" definition, but the delineation is clear in most cases. In your case, a horse and a donkey make infertile offspring (aka: a mule), and are therefore different species but the same genus.
  - 3np 5y ago
    What I'm saying is there are documented cases of mules being fertile and having healthy offspring.
catlikesshrimp 5y ago
"because it stops nazis being dicks about race" Nothing is effective enough for those extremes. But for the rest of society, specially those during school years, this is enlightening and hopefully enough to push agaisnt our inherent racism.
firethief 5y ago
> I think the effort to minimise the differences between early humans is admirable, and should be continued. We have a tiny, farcically small sample size of evidence to base any conjectures about early humans on. Being inclusive about Homo Sapiens because it stops nazis being dicks about race is a good thing. Science should not be corrupted by the goal of countering human irrationality. It's no use: racists will use "science" to rationalize their positions whether or not mainstream science agrees. And it's harmful: the more science deviates from the pursuit of truth, the less we all can trust it.

pishpash 5y ago

The ability to mate is just one among numerous phenotypical characteristics. Whether to elevate it to anything special of course depends on the fuzzy boundary of whether or how much it is actioned on.

tete 5y ago

> if two populations can mate, then they're the same species Wouldn't that mean homo sapiens and neanderthals are the same species, given that many people have neanderthal genes and interbreeding is even a hypothesis for the extinction of the neanderthals?

rp1 5y ago

Canis latrans can mate with canis lupus and they are not considered the same species, just fyi.

neaden 5y ago

For 1. No, it is a lot more complicated than that. For instance, Dogs, Wolves, and Coyotes can all interbreed with each other. But even if you treat all dogs as one species, they can't actually all interbreed with eachother without human intervention due to size differences. Then there are ring species, which can breed with two separate species that cannot breed with each other. That isn't even getting into species that can asexually reproduce.

antognini 5y ago
There was a nice article in The Economist a few months back describing the issues with coming up with a good definition of "species": https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/on-the-origin-of-species/21803917 https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/on-the-origin-of-spe...
catlikesshrimp 5y ago
That concept (populations which can share genes) is for species which have sexual reproduction. For populations which require special conditions, you can talk about subspecies. But not for the rest of lifeforms. Bacteria reproduce by cloning themselves and they can share genes laterally (between adults). And viruses are really more similar to computer viruses with intended replication errors than a lifeform.
- neaden 5y ago
  Well some species have both sexual and asexual reproduction, many trees can self fertilize or fertilize with another trees pollen for instance.

emmelaich 5y ago

Look into the wonderful world of Gene McCarthy, PhD. http://www.macroevolution.net/ http://www.macroevolution.net/ "Biology, hybrids, human origins and more"

3np 5y ago

1. Common counter-example: Horses and donkeys are considered separate species. They can produce offspring. There have been rare cases of that offspring being fertile. Not so clear.

dragontamer 5y ago
Traditionally, two members of a genus (but of different species) make infertile offspring. Two members of a species make fertile offspring. ----- This isn't a "perfect" definition, but the delineation is clear in most cases. In your case, a horse and a donkey make infertile offspring (aka: a mule), and are therefore different species but the same genus.
- 3np 5y ago
  What I'm saying is there are documented cases of mules being fertile and having healthy offspring.

catlikesshrimp 5y ago

"because it stops nazis being dicks about race" Nothing is effective enough for those extremes. But for the rest of society, specially those during school years, this is enlightening and hopefully enough to push agaisnt our inherent racism.

firethief 5y ago

> I think the effort to minimise the differences between early humans is admirable, and should be continued. We have a tiny, farcically small sample size of evidence to base any conjectures about early humans on. Being inclusive about Homo Sapiens because it stops nazis being dicks about race is a good thing. Science should not be corrupted by the goal of countering human irrationality. It's no use: racists will use "science" to rationalize their positions whether or not mainstream science agrees. And it's harmful: the more science deviates from the pursuit of truth, the less we all can trust it.