11–20 of 176 posts
This theory was one of the most interesting ideas in Sapiens , take a look at a model of what other great apes look like, if so many types of dog can interbreed why wouldn't these great apes?
Then they aren't extinct.
So how much DNA of a species, in another, means it's "that" species. Or is it brand new and different? I mean, technically, we're more related to fungi than we are plants, by quite a bit. But it's easy to differentiate humans from fungi. Still, we're related, relatively speaking compared to plants. Does that make us fungi? Obviously that's bat shit absurd. But just because a lot of homo sapiens have 1%-3% neanderthal in them, that doesn't make them neanderthal. I don't think neanderthals should be taken off the extinction list. The same, we share 85%-92% of dna with mice (this number fluctuates depending on sources). Does that make us mice?
If we interbred with them, how are they actually species? It seems more to me you're talking more about racial or breed differences akin to breeds of dogs if two species actually successfuly had viable offspring in the wild.
Hell, there's a movement to ditch the current taxonomy structure and pick one of 2 other kinds that seem to follow evolution better than what we have right now.
Wasn't subfamily or tribe originally called race back in the day? I could have sworn when I was in school it was called race. But they changed it at some point without sending me a memo.
If we interbred with them, how are they actually species? It seems more to me you're talking more about racial or breed differences akin to breeds of dogs if two species actually successfuly had viable offspring in the wild.
You're under the assumption that the current taxonomy structure has hard defined rules that nature follows because we humans told it to. Similar genus (homo is the genus) can interbreed even if they differ by species. But from what I understand, not all genus (gensuses? gensi?(I was educated that it's genera from a commentor)) follow that trait. Most can, some can't. Hell, there's a movement to ditch the current taxo…
So, please stop relating this to dogs fucking or being surprised that different species can tango under moonlight. Please stop.
Yes, different species, of different genders, of the same genus can warm up at night and spawn little hellions 7-9ish months later.
There's plenty of evidence that these other homo species were sophisticated, like the neanderthal. As much, if not more, that ancient homo sapiens (at the time).
Does that make a new species? Maybe. Current taxonomy guidelines are not perfect. There are other taxonomy systems out there that would spell this out, just not considered the universal standard we all know today. The problem is, how do you draw sharp lines in a blurry distinction without just creating a new "species" for every sexual adventurous encounter that results in a screaming child.
At the end, this article was cool and we should all be excited over this.
Would they be citizens or zoo animals? Either way, what if they want to interbreed? Do we determine this based on looks? What if the attraction is unidirectional?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're under the assumption that the current taxonomy structure has hard defined rules that nature follows because we humans told it to. Similar genus (homo is the genus) can interbreed even if they differ by species. But from what I understand, not all genus (gensuses? gensi?(I was educated that it's genera from a commentor)) follow that trait. Most can, some can't. Hell, there's a movement to ditch the current taxo…
It's genera , for future reference.