Interesting, Non Political News

Fogel

Mr. Poopybutthole
15,443
65,327
Didn't DNA sequencing pretty much put that idea to bed? Genetically they (and Denisovans) are extremely close to homo sapien (also evidenced by the fact that modern human populations in certain regions, like Europe and Asia, still carry remnants of their genes from interbreeding), but different enough that they can be classified as a different species or sub-species at best.

Look at this bigot. One race human race!

381048.jpg
 

Aldarion

Egg Nazi
11,262
30,827
Didn't DNA sequencing pretty much put that idea to bed? Genetically they (and Denisovans) are extremely close to homo sapien (also evidenced by the fact that modern human populations in certain regions, like Europe and Asia, still carry remnants of their genes from interbreeding), but different enough that they can be classified as a different species or sub-species at best.
Yes but the Hillis guy is explicitly rejecting the idea that genetic differences and reproductive isolation are enough to call it a different species. Hes literally doing the "if they can breed in a zoo theyre the same species" thing, embracing a strawman for some kind of shock value or something.
 

Pasteton

Vyemm Raider
3,118
2,315
Is there some rule where if two things can produce offspring that can produce their own offspring that they are the same species? Like how a horse and donkey can make a mule but the mule is sterile and can’t make more mules (as horse and donkeys are not the same species)
 

Furry

Email Loading Please Wait
<Gold Donor>
26,929
39,246
Is there some rule where if two things can produce offspring that can produce their own offspring that they are the same species? Like how a horse and donkey can make a mule but the mule is sterile and can’t make more mules (as horse and donkeys are not the same species)
Common misconception is that Mules are sterile. They are not, they just have much difficulty conceiving. There's a turbo-autistic professor that has done lots and lots of research into hybrids and writes books on the subject, Eugene McCarthy. He has a proper skepticism of the psuedo-scientific aspects, though presents them in his interest of being thorough. I don't know if he's done a book on the subject, but he has produced papers/materials contending with lots of evidence that humans are hybrids.

If you want to know how hybrids work, there's definitely quite the rabbit hole to go down.
 

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
18,248
14,766
It also really depends on how divergent the species are.

One interesting thing with Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens is we find absolutely zero Neanderthal mitochondria in the surviving human population. As mitochondria are only inherited from the mother, that either means that male neanderthal + female homo sapien were the only viable mating pair in terms of producing non-sterile offspring or because of some quirk of bad luck, no female neanderthal + male homo sapien produced offspring survived to adulthood and/or had enough descendants survive until the modern era. The 1st is probably the most likely
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Aldarion

Egg Nazi
11,262
30,827
Is there some rule where if two things can produce offspring that can produce their own offspring that they are the same species? Like how a horse and donkey can make a mule but the mule is sterile and can’t make more mules (as horse and donkeys are not the same species)
No one in actual biology has taken the "biological species concept" seriously for probably a hundred years. Sterile offspring doesnt factor into the distinction.

Species are defined by genetic divergence plus reproductive isolation. Thats it.

Dave Hillis is just doing some weird troll in that article. His latest postdoc must not be putting out so hes getting grumpy and seeking entertainment elsewhere.
 

Pasteton

Vyemm Raider
3,118
2,315
What degree of genetic divergence constitutes a species then? Is there an established threshold or anything like that
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
18,248
14,766
I don’t think there is a generally agreed upon number, especially when dealing with sub species and species still in the process of diverging

I think in terms of genetic differences, Neanderthal and homo sapien are measured in fractions of a percent (which takes into account the fact we carry some Neanderthal genes to this day)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Aldarion

Egg Nazi
11,262
30,827
What degree of genetic divergence constitutes a species then? Is there an established threshold or anything like that
no there is not a simple threshold that defines the line, in part because these processes vary so much between different groups.

its defined more by reproductive isolation: evidence that two populations are not interbreeding to any meaningful extent (little to no "gene flow" between them). Reproductive isolation leads to genetic divergence, over time. Speciation is a process, two groups may be undergoing speciation currently and show little genetic divergence at the present time.

Modern debates about classification are all about "how much genetic data do we need" and "how do we analyze it", never about "can they make a baby"
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user