Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HegemonNYC t1_ja9ffsz wrote

The concept of species seems vague and not very scientific. If sapiens and Neanderthal can commonly interbreed, what definition is there of species other than they have some distinctive features in their bones? Considering modern races or ethnic groups of homo sapien can also be identified by their phenotype/appearance while living or as skeletons/fossil why do we consider Neanderthals a separate species, or subspecies? Isn’t it more accurate that Neanderthals were just a distinctive looking group of the same species as Homo Sapien?

33

gwaydms t1_ja9pydr wrote

>The concept of species seems vague and not very scientific.

Scientists know this.

60

Fallingdamage t1_ja9qnm0 wrote

Because science is vague?

−11

Aekiel t1_ja9sftw wrote

Because the term species was introduced before we understood genetics that well.

23

HegemonNYC t1_ja9u9f3 wrote

Right. Hence any discussion of human ‘species’ like Neanderthals sounding very Victorian and eugenicy. ‘They had broad chests and survived well in the cold’ or ‘they had heavier brow ridges’ seems like ridiculous concepts to determine a different species. You can easily make the same kind of list about Northern Europeans vs SE Asians for example (the Homo Scandanavianus species is defined by its great height and broad frame, high nose bridge, facial hair and and exotic coloration in eye and hair color). It is considered preposterous and racist to categorize modern humans into separate species yet it seems to be the method we categorize other genuses of ‘Homo’ and even all species are just separated by looking kinda different. It seems very archaic and pre-science.

12

smashkraft t1_jaa9y57 wrote

I think this article has an interesting, nuanced take.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species-as-us.html

​

A few interesting pieces of information:

11

HanseaticHamburglar t1_jaacri7 wrote

It started that way but its becoming more scientific as we understand DNA.

Manatees are closer to elephants than whales but i don't think scientists 150 years ago could have drawn those conclusions. And there are countless examples of reclassification based on new evidence, and to some extent that goes beyond phenotypic expressions.

8

HegemonNYC t1_ja9ui9f wrote

Yes, they should fix it. It seems misleading to claim that Neanderthals were a separate species, rather than merely a somewhat different looking group of people.

−21

Pyro-sensual t1_jaa7xup wrote

There's really no fixing it. Taxonomy is just a way for humans to divide things up to try to understand them. It's not an inherent quality of nature.

38

Yukimor t1_jab9rus wrote

It’s not possible to fix.

Here’s a question for you. There are three species of zebra— grevy’s, mountain, and plains. You might wonder “why aren’t they all just the same species?”

It’s a good question. Turns out all three species have completely different number of chromosomes. Sure, they all look very similar and can interbreed, but once you start to look underneath the hood, you discover complicated distinctions. Lumping them all together erases those distinctions and is an oversimplification in that case.

That’s what scientists struggle with and why there’s so much discussion. You have animals that LOOK very much alike, but when you unravel their genomes and trace their phylogenetic and geographical history, you realize a lot of those similarities are very superficial.

There’s no “fixing” that. There’s just making adjustments and tweaks as we gain more information and improve our understanding of how different groups of similar animals relate to each other.

Humans and Neanderthals have the same number of chromosomes. But under the hood, we’re looking at evidence that hybridization wasn’t simple, and that the male offspring of such unions may have been infertile or even sterile. That suggests that the two groups were far more distant than any ethnic distinction you’d find in modern humans today, while still being a lot closer to each other than a Plains Zebra is to a Grevy’s Zebra.

The comparison may be a lot more similar to domestic cats and Asian leopard cats. The crossing between those two species produces the breed we know as Bengal cats today. But not all the direct offspring of such pairings are fertile— interestingly, as in Human-Neanderthal hybrids, the male offspring are often infertile. But nobody in their right mind would say an Asian Leopard Cat is the same species as a domestic housecat.

That’s just one example of why it’s complicated.

18

gwaydms t1_jaamuhe wrote

Domestic dogs (Canis lupus domesticans) can breed with coyotes (C. latrans), which are a different species (in the same genus).

See this article for more. Nomenclature literally means name-calling. So if you're averse to that, please skip. ;)

12

Muzzerduzzer t1_jaa3tg6 wrote

I think its because changing people's way of thinking about species (especially human species) is really hard. A good portion of the population already don't want evolution taught in school. Now throw in anything that makes it sound like we are not even %100 human.

"God's perfect and unique creation based off of his image not even human?!?!" /s

9

HegemonNYC t1_jaa4fbd wrote

Seems like a different crowd. Scientists simultaneously understand and embrace evolution and dna etc. Yet they also use ‘species’ when ‘regional variant’ or something similar is more appropriate. I think it’s because scientists like to discover new species, and don’t like to discover ‘a fossil of a known species that might be a little different looking’. Again, Victorian holdover.

0

Muzzerduzzer t1_jaa4uyy wrote

I can see that. Maybe its a time thing. Science and history will probably mean something different in the future. Just like how science and history are different from the past.

1

Cupnoole t1_jaadcvn wrote

In this specific instance I think the group that you are speaking of will be quite fond of that proposition. Most of them has been rationalizing Neanderthal as just another kinds of human race, not a distinct human species.

0

Muzzerduzzer t1_jaaewv8 wrote

I think a lot would. But there's a reason I'm not allowed to teach Sunday school anymore lol. There's a lot of fear of losing ones self worth and purpose if it's built on the idea of being unique and something that goes beyond science.

2

wittor t1_jaaf6v4 wrote

There are many ways to define a species depending on what you are trying to explain. The idea that a species is composed of all individuals that can successfully interbreed is a simplification used for basic learning purposes and is expected to be understood as an approximation to a more complete theory.

5

HegemonNYC t1_jaavvfj wrote

Does more complete theory have a definition that is objective?

−4

reasonably_plausible t1_jaa4s13 wrote

>The concept of species seems vague and not very scientific.

That's because applying any sort of strict categorization to a very fuzzy system isn't going to go nicely. Animals don't just gain a feature and are suddenly unable to reproduce with similar creatures, inability of interbreeding is based off of what specific mutations any individual species has gained. You can have extremely different organisms that are capable of interbreeding or you can have extremely similar organisms that are incapable of interbreeding. You can even have a set of ring species where species A can breed with species B, B can breed with C, C with D, D with A, but A cannot interbreed with C, nor can B breed with D.

Capability of interbreeding seems like a nice clean dividing line for species, but nature doesn't divide things up nicely into boxes. A taxonomy based off of genetic drift with speciation based off of morphology and behavior is the best we can do to satisfy the human need to categorize everything into nice compartments. If a neanderthal has a different set of bones and body structure as well as a radically different primary diet and metabolism, why does it make sense to talk about it as the same as Homo Sapiens?

50

jpastore t1_ja9ll85 wrote

Not according to another comment where they talk about different rates of maturation, and dietary differences. Neanderthals needed substantially more calories. IDK enough to provide more details but it seems like there are several scientific distinctions.

10

TheDangerSnek t1_ja9yzbx wrote

Exactly what I am thinking. If we take a skeleton of an native australian and an european human, they look a bit different. But they are both humans, that could interbreed.

1

satireplusplus t1_ja9nry8 wrote

Could be very similar to the concept of a mule, these offspring would be called hybrids:

> The mule is a domestic equine hybrid between a donkey and a horse. It is the offspring of a male donkey (a jack) and a female horse (a mare).[1][2] The horse and the donkey are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes; of the two possible first-generation hybrids between them, the mule is easier to obtain and more common than the hinny, which is the offspring of a female donkey (a jenny) and a male horse (a stallion).

−8

HegemonNYC t1_ja9t74s wrote

No, it is in no way like a mule. Mules are not fertile. Horses and donkeys are barely fertile together, they can make the mule but a mule can’t make more mules. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens can fully interbreed, with fertile offspring. Hence why we can see Neanderthal dna in ours.

11

0ldgrumpy1 t1_jaa1q6k wrote

I have an interesting question. Neanderthals used the same style of stone tools for half a million years. They didn't change. What if the group of modern humans who are deathly opposed to change carry a particular Neanderthal gene?

−8