7 ms·
Maybe humans didn't originate in Africa. There are many arguments for and against. But this is an ideological and political issue, not a scientific question. S
by otabdeveloper4 2y ago
Maybe humans didn't originate in Africa. There are many arguments for and against.
But this is an ideological and political issue, not a scientific question. So case closed, the Consensus Is Settled.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> Maybe humans didn't originate in Africa. There are many arguments for and against. Sure, but the arguments against are in the same vein as the argument that, if I draw a circle, it's not a real circle, because I don't have the level of fine control over my hand that would be necessary to produce one of those, and the tip of my pen is too wide. True, but not really relevant to anything, and in particular unlikely to convince anyone that it's a mistake to call what I drew "a circle".
- AlbertCory 2y agoI have not seen the arguments against. What are they?
- adolph 2y agoMy impression is that relatively recent genetic findings open "recent out-of-Africa" to conjectures of "its complicated mostly-out-of-Africa" https://www.edge.org/conversation/christopher_stringer-rethinking-out-of-africa https://www.edge.org/conversation/christopher_stringer-rethi...
- AlbertCory 2y agoI found this kinda hard to follow, but it doesn't seem UFO-level crazy, anyway. I'm sure this is ignorant, but: if two individuals can interbreed and produce fertile offscreen, then aren't they, by definition, the same species?
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> if two individuals can interbreed and produce fertile off[spring], then aren't they, by definition, the same species? No. For example, that would make it impossible to determine the species of fossils. For another example, wolves are considered a different species from dogs, and coyotes are considered separate from each. For a third example, bacteria don't interbreed at all, but we don't consider each of them to be their own species. The definition you allude to is technically known as the "biological species concept", which should be a hint that it's not viewed as definitive.
- AlbertCory 2y agoOK, thanks. What makes a wolf a different species than dog, and what species are the offspring of a dog-wolf mating considered?
- thaumasiotes 2y agoFundamentally what makes a wolf a different species than "dog" is that people don't consider them to be the same. But there are several good reasons; their behavior, life strategy, and often size and appearance are all radically different. The best match here is probably the "ecological species concept": (1) https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Ecological_species_concept.asp https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Ecological_sp... ; (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotype > and what species are the offspring of a dog-wolf mating considered? I am not personally aware of standard terminology, but I might say "half wolf" or "wolf hybrid". The wikipedia page is titled "wolfdog". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog There is standard terminology for the offspring of a wolf and a coyote; those are called "red wolves". Wikipedia suggests that they have a taxonomic species name canis rufus, but this is controversial (since they're hybrids).
- AlbertCory 2y agoI do appreciate this and I hope you don't perceive it as "arguing." My biological education is a little sketchy. Turning it around a little: if some members of a mainland species move to an island and eventually become incapable of interbreeding with the original species, then it is always a new species. True or false? So "no-interbreeding" is sufficient but not necessary?
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago> I have not seen the arguments against. How could you have seen any if the entire topic itself is a political hot potato and verboten to even discuss?
- AlexeyBelov 2y agoIt's not, you can discuss it. Why don't you say anything of substance?