Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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