I have been troubled on this topic. I have had course to argue even among academics and researchers, many of who claimed all humans belong to one species.

Although, I see their position as trying to be socially or politically correct, especially in the wake of taming the tide of racism and promoting the one world mantra...

But, I have taken many theories and scientific profiling of living things into consideration; from the evolution of Man, to the Biological taxonomy - Kingdom Animalia., and I have found that whether by the theory of succession (as is with the purported stages of human evolution i.e Homo Erectus-Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis- Homo Sapiens Sapiens ) or that of differentiation of species ( as in lesser animals e.g Bonobo as different from Chimpanzee etc) that humans by their race and cultural classifications are not really one and the same species!

I understand that Genetic experts claim the Human DNA is a factor to point at the similarities of all races of Man as belonging to the same species. While this is controvertible, the question here is, is DNA all there is to determine an animal's species?

Take for instance, the Rabbit and Hare. Scientists would argue that despite their very similar characteristics (such as physiology, feeding patterns, excretion, reproduction etc) they are in fact different species!

But when it comes to humans they want us to believe we are the same species despite the very sharp contrast in the looks, physiology, culture, social psychology and all...


So, my question: Do you think all humans belong to one species?

First define a specie

The major point in defining a specie is the ability to reproduce with each other.
Forget color and other physiological differences....

sotall:
First define a specie

The major point in defining a specie is the ability to reproduce with each other.
Forget color and other physiological differences....

Thank you for your fine contribution. But science has successfully created what we call cross-breeds which involved producing hybrid creatures from the insemination process across two different species!

What's your take on that sir?

Awoleesu:

Thank you for your fine contribution. But science has successfully created what we call cross-breeds which involved producing hybrid creatures from the insemination process across two different species!

Whatsoever your take on that sir?

And most products of these cross breeds lack reproductive ability.

When it comes to belonging to a specie, it has to be natural and not assisted reproduction.

sotall:


And most products of these cross breeds lack reproductive ability.

When it comes to belonging to a specie, it has to be natural and not assisted reproduction.

Thanks again for another line of argument. I take mental note of that adjective - "most"

But is this rule absolute or relative?
I asked because I have seen some hybrid animals reproduce...

Awoleesu:
I have been troubled on this topic. I have had course to argue even among academics and researchers, many of who claimed all humans belong to one specie.

Although, I see their position as trying to be socially or politically correct, especially in the wake of taming the tide of racism and promoting the one world mantra...

But, I have taken many theories and scientific profiling of living things into consideration; from the evolution of Man, to the Biological Kingdom Animalia., and I have found that whether by the theory of succession (as is with the purported stages of human evolution i.e Homo Erectus-Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis- Homo Sapiens Sapiens ) or that of differentiation of species ( as in lesser animals e.g Bonobo as different from Chimpanzee etc) that humans by their race and cultural classifications are not really one and the same specie!

I understand that Genetic experts claim the Human DNA is a factor to point at the similarities of all races of Man as belonging to the same specie. While this is controvertible, the question here is, is DNA all there is to determine an animal's specie?

Take for instance, the Rabbit and Hare. Scientists would argue that despite their very similar characteristics (such as physiology, feeding patterns, excretion, reproduction etc) they are in fact different species!

But when it comes to humans they want us to believe we are the same specie despite the very sharp contrast in the looks, physiology, culture, social psychology and all...


So, my question: Do you think all humans belong to one specie?

Go back to your college biology...one the major characteristics of a specie is that they are able to cross each other naturally...

The different intensity of the sun and temp in different location of the world caused us to produce menalin and hair at different levels...

As for intelligence...the whites were prone to more abiotic stress in their location...ranging from the extreme temperature to their soil content, .which promted them to think faster or die...havent you ever wondered why the coldest part of the world first thought of inventing a fridge first....

Man is largely the same species, though with slightly different anomaly in ontogenis...

Awoleesu:

Thanks again for another line of argument. I take mental note of that adjective - "most"

But is this rule absolute or relative?
I asked because I have seen some hybrid animals reproduce...

Yes some hybrid animals reproduce abeit assisted.

Let me ask..Have you seen a family tree of animals all of which are progeny of cross breeding different species in the wild?

advanceDNA:


Go back to your college biology...one the major characteristics of a specie is that they are able to cross each other naturally...

The different intensity of the sun and temp in different location of the world caused us to produce menalin and hair at different levels...

As for intelligence...the whites were prone to more abiotic stress in their location...ranging from the extreme temperature to their soil content, .which promted them to think faster or die...havent you ever wondered why the coldest part of the world first thought of inventing a fridge first....

Man is largely the same species, though with slightly different anomaly in ontogenis...

Thank you.
I'll like to skip your intros... because that's what 'is on trial' here...

Now, talking about survival instincts, I think every living thing has that imbibed or imbued. Even lesser animals do adapt and reconstruct according to natural dictates.

But sir, you sure wouldn't attribute some physiological differences to environmental forces like you tried to suggest in your post! Things like why the female species of the different races developed distinct bodily structures... (Why are most Negroid females with hips and curvy backsides and the Caucasoids with relatively flat back sides and tiny hips? - just an example...)

I am not trying to stick to my points pls...I guess, only need some stronger points to convince me thither...

sotall:



Yes some hybrid animals reproduce abeit assisted.

Let me ask..Have you seen a family tree of animals all of which are progeny of cross breeding different species in the wild?

Nay.

Let's just say the breakthrough of cross breeding is relatively nascent...
Perhaps with the time it takes for a tree to grow, we should see such a "family tree"

But, on a serious note, I catch your main drift - the artificiality of the reproduction process in cross breeding.
Don't you think the interracial reproduction is rather "assisted" too?

Awoleesu:

Nay.

Let's just say the breakthrough of cross breeding is relatively nascent...
Perhaps with the time it takes for a tree to grow, we should see such a "family tree"

But, on a serious note, I catch your main drift - the artificiality of the reproduction process in cross breeding.
Don't you think the interracial reproduction is rather "assisted" too?

I dont think so.
I have seen many humans of different races reproduce without assistance.

Awoleesu:

Thank you.
I'll like to skip your intros... because that's what 'is on trial' here...

Now, talking about survival instincts, I think every living thing has that imbibed or imbued. Even lesser animals do adapt and reconstruct according to natural dictates.

But sir, you sure wouldn't attribute some physiological differences to environmental forces like you tried to suggest in your post! Things like why the female species of the different races developed distinct bodily structures... (Why are most Negroid females with hips and curvy backsides and the Caucasoids with relatively flat back sides and tingly hips? - just an example...)

I am not trying to stick to my points pls...I guess, only need some stronger points to convince me thither...

U are leaning on fallacy here..and have a poor knowledge of the human anatomy.....virtually all women come with slightly curvy pelvic girdle than the men...the large difference in what you see outaide is fat...although it is possible for a girl to produce less female characteristic becos of hormonal production durimg ontogensis and post delivery growth..

Thats the slight issue that exist in human biology...some girls can to look like their fathers more than their mothers...the contribution of 23 chromosomes each from each parent to the child is on autopilot...no one has control.over it..


.there are curvy whites female and there slim flat chested white female too.... same for black people....what you percive as more curvy is just fat...some people have some dont.

There is this theory that the domestic fowl which has become successful reproductively is a cross breed of a type of bird from the wild.

What do you think about this?

sotall:


I dont think so.
I have seen many humans of different races reproduce without assistance.

Yeah, the the 'assistance' I inferred here is that they had to leave their natural environment, on one hand and scale some social hurdles on the other hand for the breeding to take place...

Given historical antecedents tho.

Awoleesu:

Yeah, the the 'assistance' I inferred here is that they had to leave their natural environment, on one hand and scale some social hurdles on the other hand for the breeding to take place...

Given historical antecedents tho.

Lol!

I do not think overcoming distances and social obstacles counts as "assistance" in this context as there is no third party forcing them to mate or giving them supplements and hormones to increase mating and conception.

advanceDNA:


U are leaning on fallacy here..and have a poor knowledge of the human anatomy.....virtually all women come with slightly curvy pelvic girdle than the men...the large difference in what you see outaide is fat...although it is possible for a girl to produce less female characteristic becos of hormonal production durimg ontogensis and post delivery growth..

Thats the slight issue that exist in human biology...some girls can to look like their fathers more than their mothers...the contribution of 23 chromosomes each from each parent to the child is on autopilot...no one has control.over it..


.there are curvy whites female and there slim flat chested white female too.... same for black people....what you percive as more curvy is just fat...some people have some dont.

Exactly my point!
I had deliberately suppressed that point of exception to every rule in my rejoinder..Alas! You brought it up

So, as it were that there is no thumb rule to determining these things, so do I argue that the 'scientific thumb rule' is controvertible too.

Notwithstanding your "ontogenesis", if we have a spectrum, (I guess this is the foundation for differentiating the races), then we can safely say "on a general..." Blacks tend to have a typical bodily structure as distinct from whites...

sotall:
There is this theory that the domestic fowl which has become successful reproductively is a cross breed of a type of bird from the wild.

What do you think about this?

I think the case of the domestic chicken and the wild chicken is basically the domestication of the same species...

Awoleesu:


I think the case of the domestic chicken and the wild chicken is basically the domestication of the same species...

Yes, domestication was what humans did but there are some questions that arise.

Why is the chicken genetically and physiologically different from the Red jungle fowl from which it was produced?


Domestication cant simply answer the difference between the Red jungle fowl and the chicken we have today.

There is something magical that happened in that transition.

sotall:


Yes, domestication was what humans did but there are some questions that arise.

Why is the chicken genetically and physiologically different from the Red jungle fowl from which it was produced?


Domestication cant simply answer the difference between the Red jungle fowl and the chicken we have today.

There is something magical that happened in that transition.

Magical??
Bros u are over thinking this matter

advanceDNA:


Magical??
Bros u are over thinking this matter

Lol! Not really.

When i say magical, i mean something unexplainable.

You can get some info on it by searching " the chicken and the egg"

Many people have already explained what a specie is here, so no need for me to rehash.
By the scientific definition of specie, all races of mankind belong to one and the same species. There are no questions about this.

And for people who might read too much into the physical differences between the different races of humans, always remember this:

German Shephards, Doberman pinschers, Rottweilers,Pitbulls, your local Ekuke (Basenji), and all hundreds of other breeds of dogs, may look very different from one another, but they are all ONE SPECIES. They are all Canis lupus familiaris

RedboneSmith:
Many people have already explained what a specie is here, so no need for me to rehash.
By the scientific definition of specie, all races of mankind belong to one and the same species. There are no questions about this.

And for people who might read too much into the physical differences between the different races of humans, always remember this:

German Shephards, Doberman pinschers, Rottweilers,Pitbulls, your local Ekuke (Basenji), and all hundreds of other breeds of dogs, may look very different from one another, but they are all ONE SPECIES. They are all Canis lupus familiaris

Interesting...

Do you agree that the Homo Neanderthalensis is as human as Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

Would you say both are same species?

I will appreciate some citation to back up your response pls.

Awoleesu:


Interesting...

Do you agree that the Homo Neanderthalensis is as human as Homo Sapiens Sapiens?

Would you say both are same species?

I will appreciate some citation to back up your response pls.

No.

There's still a little controversy about how Neanderthals should be classified. They are generally classifed as Homo neanderthalensis , which would mean that they are a different species [since their species name, neanderthalensis, is different from ours, which is sapiens.]

Other taxonomists however classify them as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which will mean that they are the same species as us, Homo sapiens sapiens, but not the same subspecies. In contrast, all modern humans are the same species and the same subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens.

Whichever taxonomy you go with, Neanderthals are not exactly the same as modern humans. But this raises the question: how come many modern-day Europeans have Neanderthal DNA? Because Neanderthal DNA among Europeans means that Homo sapiens sapiens played hanky panky with Neanderthals the natural way, and produced viable non-sterile offspring. If we say that this is only possible with animals of the same species, then it should mean Neanderthals and us are the same species.

Well, not exactly. Genetic studies have actually shown that relations between humans and Neanderthals only rarely proved successful and that in cases where they were successful, the offspring was often sterile. Virile Neanderthal-Sapiens hybrid were not as common as one might think. See this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072735

Also, and perhaps more important than the previous point, Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced and compared to the DNA of extant human types. We are actually very different from them on a genetic level.

Good points. The reason Neanderthals disappeared from the world.

I think some of their recessed DNA traces may reappear though.

RedboneSmith:


No.

There's still a little controversy about how Neanderthals should be classified. They are generally classifed as Homo neanderthalensis , which would mean that they are a different species [since their species name, neanderthalensis, is different from ours, which is sapiens.]

Other taxonomists however classify them as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which will mean that they are the same species as us, Homo sapiens sapiens, but not the same subspecies. In contrast, all modern humans are the same species and the same subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens.

Whichever taxonomy you go with, Neanderthals are not exactly the same as modern humans. But this raises the question: how come many modern-day Europeans have Neanderthal DNA? Because Neanderthal DNA among Europeans means that Homo sapiens sapiens played hanky panky with Neanderthals the natural way, and produced viable non-sterile offspring. If we say that this is only possible with animals of the same species, then it should mean Neanderthals and us are the same species.

Well, not exactly. Genetic studies have actually shown that relations between humans and Neanderthals only rarely proved successful and that in cases where they were successful, the offspring was often sterile. Virile Neanderthal-Sapiens hybrid were not as common as one might think. See this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072735

Also, and perhaps more important than the previous point, Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced and compared to the DNA of extant human types. We are actually very different from them on a genetic level.

sotall:



Yes some hybrid animals reproduce abeit assisted.

Let me ask..Have you seen a family tree of animals all of which are progeny of cross breeding different species in the wild?

I'm not sure if this is 'assisted' reproduction in opined by you but have you heard of a lepjag or leguar, leopon, ligers etc ?...

RedboneSmith:


No.

There's still a little controversy about how Neanderthals should be classified. They are generally classifed as Homo neanderthalensis , which would mean that they are a different species [since their species name, neanderthalensis, is different from ours, which is sapiens.]

Other taxonomists however classify them as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which will mean that they are the same species as us, Homo sapiens sapiens, but not the same subspecies. In contrast, all modern humans are the same species and the same subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens.

Whichever taxonomy you go with, Neanderthals are not exactly the same as modern humans. But this raises the question: how come many modern-day Europeans have Neanderthal DNA? Because Neanderthal DNA among Europeans means that Homo sapiens sapiens played hanky panky with Neanderthals the natural way, and produced viable non-sterile offspring. If we say that this is only possible with animals of the same species, then it should mean Neanderthals and us are the same species.

Well, not exactly. Genetic studies have actually shown that relations between humans and Neanderthals only rarely proved successful and that in cases where they were successful, the offspring was often sterile. Virile Neanderthal-Sapiens hybrid were not as common as one might think. See this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4072735

Also, and perhaps more important than the previous point, Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced and compared to the DNA of extant human types. We are actually very different from them on a genetic level.

So, following your argument, if we have to consider two different species of wildcats - Leopard (Panthera Pardus) and Jaguar (Panthera Onca) and drawing from your analysis of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis vs Homo Sapiens Sapiens, you will discover that a striking analogy exists, which dispels the theory that propounds species as (strictly) "organisms that can reproduce naturally " on one hand, and also corroborates my argument that closely related species (in the sense that all humans aren't the same species) may in fact reproduce and procreate genetically on the other hand...

A mating between leopard and Jaguar produced the hybrid cat known as Lepjag/Leguar.
Now, in spite of the fact that both original parents of a lepjag do not naturally dwell in a common environment/habitat (just as the case of interracial human couples), yet an 'assisted' reproduction took place by simply bringing them together in a common environment... And gbam! Copulation happened, a hybrid is born...and the hybrid can either reproduce after its own kind (especially the female) or after the kind of either of its parent!
DNA couldn't explain this and this is the "controversial" angle, the similitude of the differences in the human species too that I want us to explore!
I won't attempt to conclude until I have your take on this ..