Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Homosapiens

  1. #1 Homosapiens 
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    We cannot use the term "crossbreed" when it comes to humans and humans breeding right? because we are not of different species. Humans unite with one generic and specific name "homo sapiens", of course we evolved from other's like homo erectus etc....

    my question is, whether you are American, French, or Chinese etc... you all still belong to the same generic and specific classification, Homo Sapiens right?


    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    True, but the term crossbreeding does not refer to breeding between species, which isn't generally even possible. It is between breeds, strains, or populations of the same species.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman CrimsonViper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    67
    You can get crossbreeds between species, they just turn out infertile so the offspring cannot reproduce and the new species doesn't survive. See: Liger, wolphin, zeedonk (no I didn't make that up) etc.
    This brings me onto a question. Humans cannot mate with chimpanzees because the two species are not similar enough. If one of our descendants was still alive, say Homo Erectus, would the two species be similar enough to mate successfully?
    Edukayshun haz fayled meh.
    "Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma". Punctuation saves lives. FACT
    Nerd???I prefer the term "Intellectual Badass"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    My descendants are still alive, but they don't want to mate with chimpanzees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman CrimsonViper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    67
    Your descendant is a Homo Erectus? -Insert immature joke here- I guess i have the wrong word perhaps.
    Edukayshun haz fayled meh.
    "Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma". Punctuation saves lives. FACT
    Nerd???I prefer the term "Intellectual Badass"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonViper
    Your descendant is a Homo Erectus? -Insert immature joke here- I guess i have the wrong word perhaps.
    Perhaps ancestor is the word you are looking for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    thank you for all opinions, But do we address the term Cross breed when using humans with humans. i mean its possible to say, we crossbred a lion with a tiger etc... but humans?
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,085
    No, you can't use the term "crossbreed" when talking about humans because there is no such thing as a breed of human. Breed is not even a scientific term, but one used by animal and plant breeders to distinguish a lineage that displays a particular set of characters. Humans aren't artificially bred, so there are no breeds.

    If society was to go belly up and humans were farmed for meat, slaves or pets then perhaps you could start talking about breeds and cross-breeds once the breeders had established breeding lines and then started trying to look for certain traits. In such a world you could describe somebody with blue eyes as belonging to the "blue-eyed" breed, but it would have no scientific value or meaning. Being Chinese, Maori or Finnish doesn't constitute belonging to a specific breed either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Come on folks, insisting that all humans have equal rights is one thing; denying that we come in various shapes, sizes and, yes, colours is another. We _are_ all different.

    I can see no reason why the many different varieties (for lack of a better word) of homo sapiens, and their "interbreeding" (if that is the right word), cannot be objectively and scientifically studied, unless you are afraid the research might be used to justify discrimination.

    And yes I know the varieties are not clearly-cut sets, there is a lot of nuances and in-betweens, and "pure" types mostly exist in textbooks (and even more so, in racist propaganda).
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The problem is Leszek that features by which we would separtate humanity into 'breeds' are all pretty superficial. Biologically significant differences, like blood type, cut completely across these trivial categories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    How about body build? The average Bulgarian does differ from the average Swede, and I don't think it's just a matter of national cuisine.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Differences in frequency of traits differ between countries, but they also differ within countries. Breaking down the populations of states into artificial ethnic designations has never worked out well. Do we really want to go back to the kind of thought that lead Belgians to measuring the bridges of Hutu and Tutsi noses? Most of us know how that turned out.

    I can see no reason to bother studying genes that create a stereotypically Bulgarian body type, except to create reasons for cultural exclusion. If a population shows a trait that is detrimental to their health, or abnormally beneficial, this is worth studying to understand why. To study just for the basis of knowing what makes Bulgarians different from Swedes would lead to nothing but unreasonably highlighting mostly superficial differences.

    For the clarification of terminology, the offspring between tow different species\ are hybrids not a "crossbreeds."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Body build is interesting. There is a definite trend in the ratio of body width to height as we move from the equator to the polar regions. This seems to be related to reducing/increasing surface area to minimise or maximise heat loss. On that basis Hungarians should not be a broad as Swedes. If they are (generally) it may indicate a recent migration from a more northerly, colder environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •